how many democrats vote for a clean extension of the debt limit. >> open it up to your questions. who would like to lead off? . to say that in particular people not correctly by the storm, is this a danger for the party if there isn't something that -- >> on this one i want to actually take you substantially a different direction. i believe actually it might be just almost the reverse of how you articulate the question. we've had a lot of votes and a lot of amendments over the last few years where we've stood up and done statements, we've run

statement bills, we've, you know, stood on the -- we haven't gotten much actually to happen. so now do you start to say, here's our philosophy, here's where we are, we understand what's going on in the debt and deficit and destruction but we have a bunch of debt deniers right now other in the senate that, look, this -- this debt devastate -- devastation that's coming is coming. do we have an obligation to try to find a way to actually get a piece of legislation all the way to the president's desk where we get to start to bend the curve? something beyond the messaging bill to actually an accomplishment. and that's -- and that's going to be the battle. >> you asked if this is a test of the relevance of the conservatives in the conference.

i would say that really, most conservatives are willing to suspend disbelief and trust the leadership right now that we'll have a conservative outcome after the last three months. it's really a test of this new pact, if you will, of leadership to get to a 10-year balanced budget, to hold the c.r. at 974. we'll see if those things come to pass. i certainly hope they do. but i would submit to you it's more of a test of what the leadership is going to do than it is of the conservative element. >> i would say it's a test for conservatives across america to challenge leadership and this congress to truly embrace an idea of a balanced budget and stand behind that and also shine the light on the senate, the fact that they're not doing their job. i think it's a test for all of us, not just us, conservatives on the dais here, i think it's a test for leadership and i

think it's a test for conservatives across america to really, i guess, rally behind something and support something that seems to have reform efforts to it. that is a pathway to a 10-year balanced budget. >> i think there's been too much waiting on the part of republicans, waiting for republicans to control the senate, waiting for republicans to control the white house, and there hasn't been enough persuading of the american people. it's very difficult to move a conservative agenda if the public is not behind you. i think our messaging has not been very strong and the public is not behind us. that's a real problem for our party. >> a couple of comments on the followup as well. first on the political reality and we've had in the last few months certainly the hastert rule hasn't aploy -- applied

and if this passes tomorrow, the wayner rule would not apply any longer, dollar for dollar cuts for raising the debt ceiling. those are a couple of things that have guided republicans in the last two years or the last decade and that raises some real flags for me. but i think it's not republicans that are looking for relevance. i think it's washington as a whole looking for relevance. we're running trillion dollar deficits. for what will be the fifth straight year. and the reality is s&p as downgrade us. moody's and finch's have sent downgrade possibilities, sent the notice and we're still acting as if it's 1995 or 2000 where we aren't running trillion-dollar deficits. but i hope it's not the case but if in the meantime with all these games, around the messaging, trying to figure out sequencing, if moody's follows

through with their threat and says america is not worthy of triple-a credit rating, that's a serious reality. the political reality and then you have the economic reality. i don't think we have 10 years to actually somehow find a path to balance. i think we need to move more quickly. but originally we were asked the question, is there a 10-year balanced budget proposal in there? and i don't know the answer to that. i'm not for sure. we don't have the numbers from the c.b.o. i think our leadership has to have committed to that, there are different answers from different leaders, both privately and publicly. so i think they have to hold a 10-year balanced budget. but if you want a balance in 10 year you don't start at 10, you start at seven. you have to negotiate with a president who doesn't want to balance the budget. last year's proposal was 26

years, the balanced proposal from the republican. the r.c. was seven seven, the president's was never. how we're going to get to 10, that's a huge movement on the republican side as well. but it has to be done. we need to be looking at the r.n.c. budget of even eight years if we're serious about going to the senate and wanting to end up at 10 years. but there are some big changes in the paul ryan budget plan to get to 1 years. that will come on the medicare side that will be a big, tough change on the house side. >> we do have an online question coming in asking why a couple of you referenced private conversations you've had about a 10-year balance. why haven't those been public pronouncements that have come out? >> i think they have been somewhat public. they're going to become much more public. and there's more to this. it's also that 974 number, statute that that will continue

to stay. in this -- someone comes back to your question, relevance right now may also be for those in influence, you know, those with the power in our leadership when they look members like myself in the eyes and say, here's where this goes. we're going to have the budget committee produce a 10-year balanced budget. we are going to stand behind those dollar apts in the sequestration legislation. we are going to hold firm. in many ways, in 90 days, this is going to be the ultimate test of the relevancy of those we entrust with those leadership positions. and i believe there would be thole pay if they squander this.

>> [inaudible] >> we know and -- i lean no, i'm going to lean no on everything until i'm persuaded to vote yes. i think that's the responsible thing to do as a legislature. you should always start at no and be persuaded to vote yes. i'm not persuaded yet but i'm open minded. >> i am trying to get to yes but i'm not there. i can't get to yes on this. and again, i'm going to vote on principle. and i understand the principle of the next three months but i believe that every vote you take should stand on principle. i'm having a hard time with the principles of this first vote standing on its own. >> i probably, over the weekend i lean yes but i'm probably sliding back to more undecided,

lean no, because we got the text of the bill over the weekend, started asking some questions. after you read the text there are some questions that come to mind. if i get those answered appropriately, which i hope to do by this afternoon at our conference meeting, it would change my mind but i'm probably just undecided at this moment. >> part of the question was what are the assurances and certainly the 10-year plan was referenced and i'd like to be at 10 years, you can't start at 10 if you want to end up at 10. secondly, those, budget is essentially a messaging document. if the house is going to be serious about a 10-year plan, it's time with bring a tax bill to the floor. i think it would have helped us in the election if we'd run a tax bill on the floor and actually run a medicare bill. last year's budget was i think about one page. not even one page. there's a lot more heavy lifting than a one-page tax

plan. i think republicans could do ourselves good by striking out prorkviding leadership, outlining what a breath program looks like, same with the house and other entitlement reform. let's secure medicare, medicaid, sos and it's one thing to have a paragraph in the budget and another to pass things on the floor. i think it's time we took that chance and put out what we're for in a detailed manner. these are serious times. it's not about gains before the next election. it's gains with our credit worthiness long-term. >> i think it's important to point out that one of the reasons leadership may be able to shorten the years to balance is buzz of the recent tax increases. so it's not just a structural change in what we're doing, it's that there have been tax increases. so if taxes were lowered again, then that might change the picture.

i think we haven't been given enough assurances that once you reach the balance within 10 years, that you stay at balance or near balance and don't just bounce off the bottomed on go back up to deficit. because it's possible you could balance at year 10 and then have deficits going on until year 20 or 25. it's important to understand those structural issues. >> do you think republican leaders right now are in position where they should be accommodated the president and be part of his agenda or just standing as a bulwark against it? >> unfortunately, i think our strategy right now is to play rope-a-dope until 2014. i think we need to go on the defensive and stand on our presence pls.

no spending happens unless it's approved by the house. and i think we need to be ready to stand firm on that. so i wouldn't take a defensive posture even though he's very bold in his statements yesterday. >> mr. labrador, we were lonely without you. >> it's good to be here. >> how many of you didn't listen but actually just read the president's speech? if you sit and read it on paper and try not to hear it in his voice but just read the words, it's in many ways i've heard that exact same speech dozens and dozens and dozens of times from hard left act vis. it sounded like every standardized left wing speech and if you start to dice it, ok, if you're after social justice trks -- social justice, a job, a growing economy, is

social justice. not trying to manipulate a society, not trying to move toward a collectivist society. so there are fairly radical -- radically different visions of what creates social justice, what creates that opportunity. i think we as the conservatives, as those who are defenders of freedom, have to constantly be pushing. even when we're running against that brick wall we've got to keep running into it until eventually we knock parts of it down because heaven forbid if this president were to get his vision of the agenda, what would this country look like four years from now? >> talk a little bit more about the tax component of the republican agenda. when you talk about tax reform

what does that mean? >> one of the thing that -- things that has some of us enthused, chairman camp, at least this is what i'm hear they spent two years holding hearings, collecting information about what a much broader base, lower rate, a lot less, you know, sorry to throw some acquaintances under the bus, lobbyist created carveouts, special extenders in the tax code would look leek and why do we want to embrace such a thing? it's because it maximizes economic growth. if we're the party of economic growth, we need to blow up this tax code and i -- it's finally, it's becoming part of our common discussion now that this needs to be the year where we radically change the tax code so we can actually start to grow the economy.

>> what was the last part of your question? >> i was wondering what you think the components are? >> one thing that was discussed at the retreat and republicans have been discussing since the early 1930's is the issue of wall street vs. main street. clearly in the last election with our candidate, the republicans still look like the party of wall street. when it was both parties that bailed out wall street. but in my book, any tax policy has to deal with main street. has to deal with families and small businesses. but it is -- the difficulty i think we have going in as i think the american people are also looking at the last tax policy that just passed, kept all the kashouts and extenders and special tax provisions from folks who had lobbyists who had kecks to wall street and republicans said all along for two years we didn't believe in that anymore. so i think it's high time we bring out a policy, bring out and have a full debate on the

floor about all these handouts and all these tax subsidies. i'm going to be fighting for main street. the president has been able to position himself that way even though he voted for that bill with all these handouts. i believe if we want to get the economy growing again, it doesn't start at wall street, it starts at main street in america with small businesses. and the republicans have had difficulties with that. i think washington has had difficulties with that because this town, everybody says they're for small business bus then they worry about boeing and they worry about wind subsidies for $12 billion an forget about the small business impact. so that's one goal i have. and i think it's -- i think it's a party-wide goal or should be, that republicans should be the party. that's our history. standing for the small guy. not the guy on wall street. >> you guys are talking about, you're putting pressure on the senate obviously to pass the budget but you're also talking

about deepening the cuts in your own budget. what gives you the confidence that the majority in this climate that budget will pass with only a republican vote. on a broader level, what's the risk, we've seen that the republican majority simply cannot pass bills on its own? >> the premise of your question is false. we have been able to pass bills for two years in the house of representatives with just the republican majority. the issue that we need to address in our conference is what we talked about at the retreat and we've been talking about for the last couple of weeks is that we heed to start governing from a con seventive perspective. and i don't know what everybody else said about the deal we're going to do tomorrow but i'm actually ok with what leadership is doing right now because they actually have an agenda. the agenda is to get to balance in 10 years, to have a balanced budge, not just to pass a budget that balances in 10 year

bus to actually achieve balance in 10 years. if you look at what we're going to do, we're going to pass a three or four-month extension of the debt ceiling. then we're going to get into a fight on the sequester and hold the line of the sequester. this is a promise the leadership is making to us. as long as they keep that promise i think many conservatives will be ok with that. then when we get to the debt ceiling fight we're going to ask for at a minimum the one--- the one-for-one cuts that come from the boehner rule for any long-term debt ceiling extension system of if we look at that, it means that in 10 to 15 years, with very little help from the democrats, we can achieve a balanced budget which is much better than even the 23- to 27 -- better than the 23 years to 27 years and obviously better than the never balancing budget obama and the democrats

have proposed for the last four years. so you look at all the data out there. all the public opinion polls say that the american people think we're spending too much money. that the american people think that we are taxing too much. but the problem is that as republicans, i think this goes to what representative huelskamp just said, as republicans we have been seen as the party of big business. and we should never be the party of big business. we should be the party of individuals. the party that helps individuals have a fair share. we have a system that is unfair to small businesses, to individuals, we have a tax system that is unfair, we have a regulatory system that is unfair, and when republicans once again start talking about mainstream, about small businesses, about individuals, that's when we're going to win the fight. but if we keep representing big business if everything that comes out of the house seems

like we're just -- that we're just worried about what job creators, i always tell the joke, we always use the term job creators in the republican conference. i think the only people who use the term job creators are republican congressmen. there's nobody in america who talks about tissue they wake up in the morning and say, you know, i'm really worried about those job creators. there's nobody in america who talks that way except for republican congressmen. we need to start talking about families and individuals once again and be sure that our families make it easier and smoother for families and individuals, that our policies make it easier and smoother for families and individuals to be successful in america. i wrote a newsletter out of my office about three weeks ago, three or four weeks ago and i talked about the theme of big business and big government. big business loves big government. and the reason they love big government is because they're the only ones who can afford

all the regulations and all the requirements that come out of washington. small businesses can't afford that individual businesses cannot afford that. but big businesses can and they can actually thrive in an environment where there's more regulations and more taxes. look what happened a couple of weeks ago, the business round table came to washington and said, raise taxes on the individual as long as you lower taxes on corporations. as long as we continue to do that, and protect big businessings, we're going to have a hard time as republicans being the party of -- that actually gets the majority in presidential races. >> following on that question, the republican committee budget which balances in 10 years has failed to get a majority of republicans. so this 10-year budget that

doesn't raise taxes has to cut more and previous plans have failed to get a majority of republicans. what's changed? >> isn't that what's beautiful about this? think about this. for leadership to look at you and say we're going to do a 10-year budget which in many ways is the r.n.c. budget from last year plus you've got to understand, there's been another year of erosion in the numbers because of what this administration has done, and say this is going to be our position as the conference, that's actually one of -- one of the beautiful things here. when you put that up and say, this is the budget for the team, and many of those on the conservative side are often fussed at for wanting to play nicer with the team, we'll always play great with the team when we're doing what's conservative.

what happens when that number up there is the conservative budget? >> i would caution again that the revenue baselines have changed so that changes the window for balance and in fact under the last house budget, i believe it almost achieved balance in a fairly short period of time but then it went back up. so that's why you get to the almost 30-year balance. so if the revenues change a little bit, you might actually hit balance. the question is whether it stays at balance. >> are you also looking at status scoring from the budget office? is that the measure? >> that has to be part of that. in order to be a serious budget. it would have to include c.b.o. score, an outside model as a way to plus sthose up. it is very difficult, especially when the budget last year had maybe 120 votes, less

than half, i'm not sure what it was. it will take significant changes in medicare that we haven't done before in order -- the idea that we couldn't touch folks that are 55 and older, i think that would have to move as well. >> these fights over sequestration and government shutdown possibly and then the debt limit are trying to focus the fight on the goth shutdown which arguably might be a lower stakes fight. do you feel you're giving up leverage? or is this a good way to proceed on this? >> patrick henry once said in a very important time of our history, he said the war is inevitable, let it come. there is a battle. i talked about the downgrade and can we afford to wait three

months? i'm concerned about that. and concerned about the timing and how long we can wait. i spent the first two years, i think, like many of my colleagues saying gosh darn it, we better move quickly because we can't wait two years. i still do hear my colleagues this weekend, certain colleagues, saying, you know what, when we get a new president we're going to really do something about it. i don't know if we can wait three months, i'm certain we cant wait four years. my particular concern about the timing and waiting to have that battle, again if we are going to pass through the house and assume the senate would agree to it a raising the debt ceiling for an unspecified amount to somewhere in the future we'll have a battle over that, that's yet to be determined what exactly that looks like and i didn't hear any answer to that question. i asked privately over the last few days. >> now i'm an eternal optimist

system of i actually think it's fine to resequence what we're doing right now, as long as we get the promise from leadership that they'll strick to the principles and goals we have set forth my message to leadership has been pretty clear. the goal is not to have a balanced budget. the goal is to have a budget that balances in 10 years. the goal is to have a path to a balanced budget. so if all they're going to do is resequence everything so we can have a republican budget pass the house of representatives, we don't need to resequence anything to just have a republican budget pass the house of representatives. if we're going to stick to our fighting principles, which is that we have a bloated government, that the american people are with us on this, and they're just resequencing because they're worried -- they're having a fight over the

debt ceiling right now and they'd rather have a fought over the debt ceiling in three months, i don't have a problem with that, i need to hear that commitment, they've been asked and they're going to be asked again today at the conference meeting, to make the commitment that we're going to be on a path to balance in 10 years. if they're willing to fight with us on that, i think i an stand with them. >> thank you. you talked about this 10-year balance, you've also talked about the sequester for things like holding the line on the sequester. what specifically does that mean? does that mean you're going to hold the line on a set of principles to try to replace those cuts with other cuts, or are they just going to let the sequester take effect? what's your understanding? >> the numbers with the sequester is either sticking to that number so letting the sequester take effect or replacing the cut in the

military and other programs with other cuts that get us to 974. so we're -- if you're ticking to the -- sticking to the 974 number, which i believe was the r.n.c. number last year in our budget but that's what it means to me. it doesn't necessarily have to be all discretionary. if we can get the democrats to agree with us to doing some reforms of the mandatory program, then we're willing to shift some of that to mandatory. >> look, i would be elated to see it move into some of the mandatory because if you look at the math, the mandatories consume us as a people but mandatories are also -- $1 savings in mandatory is for a lifetime. it has a multiplier effect into the future. if i came to you today and said, $100 savings in discretionary or $100 savings in mander to, you take the

mandatory. because it has a very powerful multiplier effect into the future. >> if you have any modifications to the sequester only then the discretionary side then the replacement cuts have to happen in the same time period. one of the problems we've had is when replacement cuts are suggested, they are spread out over five years 10 years rather than within the same time period as the original cuts. >> what would you all like to see, if anything, done over the next two years on immigration reform? >> well, as many of you know, i was an immigration lawyer for 15 years. i believe we need to have a modern immigration system. we need to have a system that works for the future. in fact, i just left the

judiciary committee meeting with the republicans on the judiciary committee and one of the things we're going to talk about, something i agree with, is having a fair immigration system that works for america. and really that's what we need to be talking about right now is how are we going to change the immigration system, so 15 years from now 20 years from now we're not talking again about the same issues we're discussing today. what are we going to do with the 12 million people that are here, what are we going to do we tchids who came here through no fault of their own. we need to figure out what we're going to do with those things. we have to figure out a fair system. it has to be fair to the people in the system, it has to be fair to the people here illegally and most importantly, and i think this is key, it has to be fair to the american people. and i think if we can reform the immigration system and have border enforcement and interior enforcement so the american

people feel confident we're not going to be debating this issue for the next 5 or 20 years, i think we could have immigration reform that would pass the house of representatives with conservative votes and hopefully pass the senate. i'm not sure the democrats, to this day i'm not sure the democrats really want to refrm the immigration system. they have a political tool every two years to attack republicans on. and the question that you guys need to ask the democrats is if they want to have a political victory or if they want to have a policy victory. if they want to have a political victory, then they're going to try to blame us for immigration reform not passing. if they want to have a policy victory, then they're going to work with conservatives in the house and senate to pass immigration reform plan that modernizes the immigration system and gets us to a path that all americans think the system is fair.

i personally am opposed to a pathway to citizenship. i think we should have -- the current pathway to citizenship works. what we need to do is have a path -- probably what i call a pathway to legal status so people that are in the shadows right now can come out of the shadows and participate in the current existing citizenship process we already have. >> i know you'll have a chance tomorrow to question secretary clinton and as of yet the real issues have not come to the table fully which is why was the obama scradmrgs actively arming and supporting known al qaeda fighters in libya, which were responsible for the attack during the overthrow of gaddafi and continue to support known al qaeda elements in syria and

elsewhere? senator rand paul made a good statement -- i just want to say senator rand paul called -- talked about fast and furious saying there would be an investigation in the senate. i want to know, representative amash with the government and oversight reform, this could be obama's watergate. how far will he take it? >> i believe a lot of questions the american people want asked will be asked. i anticipate, me personally, asking some very pointed questions of the secretary because i have questions as an american taxpayer and as a citizen. i was surprised this weekend after what happened in algeria that secretary panetta said we're going to go after the guys that were responsible for killing these americans that were working. what about going after the guys that killed our ambassador? and killed two guys that served our country and our military?

you know? i posted that on facebook because i was dumbfounded in the fact that he would make that statement and been quiet about the deaths of four americans in libya. and so america has a lot of questions. what exactly was going on at the so-called consulate in benghazi? it was a special mission. ok, it was a special mission. what was this mission? and if we're spending money all around the world getting -- giving money away to a lot of countries that don't like us very much, why aren't we spending money to guard the americans that put their lives on the line to leave their families and go out to work in the foreign services? shouldn't our priorities be to make sure americans are protected first before we give american tax dollars away to countries that don't like us very much? i believe these are questions we have to ask. americans are frustrated, they're frustrated with fast and furious, with executive orders. there's a lot of othings i think are interconnected.

i yield to mr. amash. >> i think there are a lot of questions that remain unanswered, as jeff pointed out, and i'm confident we'll get to the bottom of it in oversight. >> ultimately the question is what are we going to do to prevent this going forward? not what can we gain politically from it. so inevitably, our tentacles go so far into foreign policy that it's inevitable that we're going to find places where we have funded people who are actually against us. as you know, i'm for less foreign involvement. >> another question from the web. the president talked about climate change. not something obviously that we've heard a lot about in the debates you've been discussing for the past hour or so. your thoughts on where this might go in this 113th congress. >> my instinct is what you heard in the president's inauguration speech, he was trying to basically throw a

bone to every left wing activist group he could. and so start to think about this more from this white house. they've received so much pressure from labor and from those of us who, you know, want the economy to grow on things like the keystone pipeline. >> i think it's a company that wants money like solyndra. >> but you start to see the game being played. this goes back to my earlier discussion if you actually just read the speech and wrote side notes on it saying, oh this is for this constituency, this is to make this group money, oh, but if i do a keystone pipeline vote over here allow that to go, i better throw some red meat to my environmentalist activists. i'm sorry but if you dice up the speech he's playing all the different constituencies even some of the left wing constituencies and sort of, you know, it's brilliant manipulation but it's wedge politics.

>> i think it means more corporate welfare in the form of so-called green jobs. which means the president will be funneling money to political insiders at the expense of ordinary americans. >> i was disappointed to see him blame the drought on human activity and then to say that we're denying the evidence of scientists and that somebody with a science-type -- as somebody with a science-type background i took offense at that. i would challenge him to show us the linkage, the undeniable linkage between drought and change of weather and some kind of human activity. >> it's not like you're an m.i.t. graduate. oh, wait, you are. i think it was a message, not to congress but to whoever will be running the e.p.a. for the president. i don't see any of that language passing through the house and so it'll be via rule and reg, executive order

potentially through the white house. the m.i.t. grad does bring up the science today as we sit on the 40th anniversary of roe v. wade, i find it amazing that the unmistakable scientific and biological evidence of the humanity of a -- an unborn child is denied by the white house while we have this debate over other science as well. >> clear think the administration likes to use regulatory agencies as a bludgeon to play to his constituencies. if the leadership wants to make sure i would vote for this debt ceiling increase, they could achieve the rains act to it, which my predecessor geoff davis got passed through the house. let's stake that on this and send it to the senate and say this is a reasonable proposal, it's going to help the economy. >> we need to start to wrap up. we can take maybe a couple more questions. in the back. >> following up on that,

whether a budget comes out first from the house or senate this spring, will you seek to strip out funding for planned parenthood? >> i will but that would be in the propings process. there have been two bills introduced by two congresswomen in the house and they'll still be -- there'll still be an effort. mike pence is now governor of indiana so there'll be a continued effort. you would think out of a $3.7 trillion budget we could find somewhere to cut an certainly that's one good place to start. >> if any finalized budget does include funding for that, will you support it or vote against it? >> there's two things going on. the budget doesn't specify much of anything except numbers on the page. then we'll go through appropriations bills. the problem we've had is appropriations bills haven't come out of committee and haven't had a chance to debate on the floor.

i presume we'll have debate on that and the house will continue its policy of defunding planned parenthood but that's one specific part of one appropriations bill. thank you. >> it's one thing to put forward the idea of a balanced budget but to achieve it, the leadership has caved each and every time. to get rid of the boehner rule now, what makes you think we can bring it back in may? if i were the senate democrats and the president, you caved before, why let you do it again? your so-called demands, we've told them -- >> we're not being had for nothing in return. we're asking for a budget, number one, which the senate hasn't passed in four year. chuck schumer yesterday on "meet the press" made the announcements that of course democrats would pass a budget this year. if you believe the pressure is

not getting to him, then you're not watching. i think the pressure is getting to him. for chuck shumer to say on national tv they're going to pass a budget anyway tells you that the strategy might be working. however, your question is very valid. because i have those same concerns. they have caved every single time, in the last two years, and i have made it very explicit to them that i am with them on this issue because i believe their statements that they're not going to cave again but if they cave again, they're going to have -- they're going to have some problems in the house. they're going to have -- because there's a large number of members of the house, republican house members, who are very dissatisfied with what's happening. and they're believing that the leadership is changing, their gentleman ji, they're changing their negotiation tactics. i'm just optimistic. like i said before. but i think they have to prove themselves.

leadership comes not from demanding leadership but from having the people that you're leading trust you. that's the only way you can follow is if you have trust in your leadership. i don't have that trust 100%, but i also -- i believe that they want to change but i'm willing to give them that trust. that trust will only come if they stick to that principle. the way it works, according to the discussions i've had with paul run and -- ryan and others, is if we stick to the sequester for the next 10 years and stick to a minimum of the one-for-one, the boehner rule, for the next 10 year get to a balanced tpwhudget 10 to 12 years or something like that. just by sticking to those two things, the sequester and the one-for-one rule we get to a balanced budget much sooner than we would have if we don't do anything else. i want to move the world quickly but i'm also willing to move it in inches.

if we're moving in that direction in inches, i'm willing to follow that lead. >> on other important note, just because the house would have a 10-year budget, that's not required of the senate, they might have a 75-year budget, a 26-year budget, they may have no medicare reform. in the act there's no requirement we follow through with conferencing and actually working out a budget we can hold ourselves to. that's still in the act. that's a law. that's always the law by april 15. but -- the bill -- >> i think it's time for the senate to take up a budget. actually show the american people the color of their stripes. they have been insulate by the house republicans by us passing bills that harry reid said would pass the senate. preconference bills that were dropped at our laps at the end of the crisis right when we were getting ready to shut down the government or hit our default position. i think this is good from the

standpoint that we're going to force the senate to debate on the floor of the senate a lot of them only see the floor when they go to vote, i want to see them debate, standing before the american people and talking about their liberal policies and their spending priorities. i believe america needs to see that. i think if we have hope as conservatives to take back the united states senate, we have got to expose those guys and fwals for what they are. >> and i hope that is really the case. but again, this bill has to be -- go to the senate and be signed by the president. so the senate has to agree we're going to put them online. the question in conference was asked one of our leaders, what happens if the senate strips that out and sends back a clean, three-month encrease. one of our leaders said, i'd vote for that it remains to be seen, we'll further discuss this later today but great questions. >> i want to thank you for participate, the six members of

congress and all of you who joined us online and in the room. we'll come back with more conversations with for conservatives. we need to clear out of the room for another event happening in the afternoon here. appreciate your cooperation with that. >> house republicans from earlier today, the second in a couple of series they have done on conversations with conservatives. you can see all of that in our video library at c-span.org. the u.s. house gaving back in 15 minutes or so. they'll vote -- have a couple of votes on -- particularly one on a bill that deals with federal medical disaster and emergency response to pandemic preparedness. we expect the house in, again, about 2:00 p.m. eastern. also tomorrow the house was going to take up an increase in the debt limit to allow borrowing until may 19. the house rules committee is set to meet this afternoon. they should be begin -- meet beginning at about 2:45 after the last vote gets under way.

we'll have live coverage of house rules online at c-span.org. while we wait for the house to gavel back new york a look at yesterday's inaugural activity, viewer reaction from this morning's "washington journal." hypothen a side story -- host: then a side story.

host: here's "the washington post's" headline. "we must act." and the "washington times." host: your thoughts on president obama's inaugural speech, what you heard in it,

what do you think? debra in virginia, democratic caller. hi, deb rasm caller: good morning. i hear a sense -- caller: good morning. i hear a sense of responsibility, a sense of really, really trying to make out what it is he wants to do. all he needs is a reasonable amount of backup from the people that vote, their voice matters and hopefully that when he speaks about certain things that congress will understand where he's coming from and will understand that he is not a separate person dealing with different -- with separate races. he's for everybody. and because he's -- he turns toward people that are less fortunate doesn't mean he's

gearing toward one group of people. there's unfortunate people in all races. just give him that second chance he deserves. he came into office with a whole bunch of stuff all messed up and he is attempting to straighten it out. there's no time limit on it. all the years things have been messed up, why do you think he can perform miracles and clean it up in four years? host: all right, debra, a democrat. thad is a republican in atlanta, georgia. what are your thoughts? caller: i called because i'd like to know why the inch r.s. has delayed accepting tax returns when the fiscal cliff had nothing to do with the 2012 tax cuts. host: did you watch the inaugural address? caller: i did. host: thoughts on that? caller: i don't really have any thoughts on that host: why not?

ok. we go on to jeff in new orleans, independent caller. caller: i seen the inauguration and watched the speech. it's the same old, same old to me. same rhetoric, same speech. i'm not here to diminish anybody's happiness or how they feel about the royce torical aspects of it but it seems like the same thing i'm ready to see what's going to be pen to paper, the bills that will be passed a and what has been passed that's not being talked about. i think americans need to wake up and get away from the pageantry and rhetoric of it all and pay attention to what's happening. host: republican response after the address, here's a quote from daryl issa, the top republican on the house oversight committee. he said, i'm hoping the president will recognize that compromise should have been the word for today. we were hoping that he would use this day to reach out to all americans and to all parties. he clearly did not.

then inside "the washington times" this mortgage, plenty of quotes from republicans. this one from steve king. they say outspoken republican from iowa among the first congressional lawmakers to weigh in on the inauguration. he issued a statement more than three hours before president obama ceremonially took the oath of office for his second term. senator jeff sessions, an alabama republican, refused to criticize the i dress.

host: to douglas, nashville, tennessee, democratic caller. caller: good morning. host: what are your throughouts on the inaugural address? caller: i thought it was wonderful. i thought the speech was very insightful and i believe that he talked about we the people and together we can do the things he set out to do. host: he talked about social security, climate change, equal rights for gay couples and women. is that your priority list?

caller: i'm not sure it's in that order but the president has a hard job and congress has yet to work together with him and i believe that we have good republicans and over 50% of the country agreed with the position of the president and i believe the congress will go along with him eventually. host: give me your priority list, top five, or top three. caller: jobs, education, and for the war to end. host: all right. ok. that was douglas in nashville, tennessee, a democrat there. let's hear the president in his own words talking about the economy and his thoughs on social security and medicare. [video clip brbts

>> for we, the people understand our country cannot succeed when a shrinking few do very well and a growing many barely make it. we believe that america's prosperity must rest upon the broad shoulders of a rising middle class. we know that america thrives when every person can find independent and pride in their work. when the wages of honest labor liberate families from the brink of hardship. we are true to our creed when a little girl born into the bleakest poverty though knows she has the same chance to succeed as anybody else because she is an american, she is free, and she is equal, not just in the eyes of god but also in our own. we, the people, still believe that every citizen deserves a basic measure of security and dignity. we must make the hard shoices

-- choices to reduce the cost of health care and the size of our deficit. but we reject the belief that america must choose between caring for the generation that built this country and investing in the generation that will build this future. we remember the lessons of our past, when twilight years were spent in poverty and parents of a child with a disability had nowhere to turn. we do not believe that in this country freedom is reserved for the lucky or happiness for the few. we recognize that no matter how responsibly we live our lives, any one of us, at any time, may face a job loss or a sudden illness or a home swept away in a terrible storm. the commitments we make to each

other through medicare and medicaid and social security, these things do not sap our initiatives, they strengthen us. they do not make us a nation of takers, they free us to take the risks that make this country great. >> the top republican in the senate, mitch mcconnel, responded to the president's inaugural address saying, i congratulate president obama in his inauguration to a second term and wish him well in the fulfillment of his duty to lead the u.s. at home and i a broad over the next four years. host: laura in pennsylvania, a republican. what do you think of the

inaugural address? caller: eloquent in some ways but what was glaring to ming he left out the rights of the unborn. we're celebrating today the 40th anniversary of roe v. wade, i don't know, gretchen, if you have anyone speaking on that topic but we have legally killed 50 million plus unborn human beings and the -- in the atrocity of abortion and it should be as important as, you know, slavery was back in lincoln's time. it's the right of everyone to have life and liberty and these unborn babies across the country are being killed and we have a pro-life charity, saveunbornlives.org and we're trying to call to attention to look at these innocent little ones and offer hope to a abortion-mined women to choose life. i hope you get someone to speak on this issue because over 50%

are pro life americans now and that should be the number one topic we should be talking about a personhood amendment just like lincoln talked about freing the slaves in his amendment. host: we'll be talking about the ageneral ka for the second term coming up in our last half of "the washington journal" this morning and we'll talk about, could there be another contraception fight like there was during the first term but you mentioned roe v. wade. that's the front page of the "washington times" this morning, abortion battle rages 40 years of row decision. protest planned in washington. more than one million abortions are performed each year in the united states in an estimated total of 54 million pregnancies have been terminated since 1973. but the moral and political questions surrounding the issue remain as unsettled in 2013 as we were 40 years ago tuesday when the supreme court issued its 7-2 decision. tomorrow here on "washington journal" in our last hour for a

spotlight on a magazine series we're going to be talking to joshua prager who wrote for "vanity fair" this month about the women behind roe v. wade and we'll talk about that decision tomorrow on "washington journal" in our last hour. let's go to jefferson in washington, d.c., independent. hi. what did you think? caller: i thouggeded me ger ever's -- fers' wife started the program off very well and president obama shared america with us and i hope that congress can feel free to vote freely so that we can get more bills passed because this country is growing and we need to grow even more. host: ok. felicia in washington, d.c.,

democratic caller. what are your thoughts? caller: i want to speak about the unspoken words. why is it so difficult for president barack obama to express publicly that he supports the right of the citizens of the district of columbia to have statehood? give us a break. thousands of district residents, vol tiered in virginia, ohio, and florida to ensure this democratic victory and yet no mention. who are we, when are we somebody, mr. president? you made bold statements and taken very bold act in your first administration, go out clean, give us statehood, make us free. host: all right. jodied on twitter says --

>> we'll break away here to take you live back to the house floor for a series of votes. i write to inform you that i have notified missouri governor jeremiah nixon of my resignation from the u.s. house of representatives effective 11:59 p.m., january 22, 2013. serving the eighth congressional district in the u.s. house of representatives has been the greatest honor of my professional career. i am humbled and grateful for the opportunity to represent southern missouri to bring the ideas of the people to our capitol and to be part of our democracy. i have always emphasized the same virtues of the people who sent me here. civility, hard work, integrity, and love for our neighbors. i deeply appreciate the way our house of representatives reflects these important parts of life and our great nation. i'm grateful beyond words for the members of my staff, our

committees, and my fellow colleagues in congress for their service, guidance, and friendship. so many talented individuals worked to ensure the house of representatives reflects the voice and will of the people, and most americans never see the men and women working long hours to advance policy, to support debate, and to conduct meaningful oversight. finally, i have to thank the constituents of the eighth congressional district. in times of tragedy they have inspired me with their courage. in times of disaster they have inspired me with their resilience. in times of uncertainty they have inspired with me their unwavering optimism. i have been honored to fight by their side. i am very proud of what we have accomplished. signed, very sincerely, jo ann emerson. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourn to

meet at 9:00 a.m. tomorrow. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. pursuant to clause 86 rule torques the unfinished business is the vote -- 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. pitts, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 307 on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 307, a bill to re-authorize certain programs under the public health service act and the federal food, drug, and cosmetic act with respect to public health security and all hazards preparedness and response, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 394. the nays are 29. 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the -- the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 395.

the nays are 29. 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i move that the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the gentleman will suspend. the house will come to order. the house will come to order. the house will come to order. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. >> mr. speaker, i move that the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. those opposed, nay. the nays have it.

the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ribble: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, this is a 15-minute vote on the motion to adjourn, which will be followed by five-minute vote on approval of the journal, if ordered. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are zero. the nays are 416 with one

recorded as present. the motion is not adopted. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the question on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. which the chair will put de novo. the question is on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the journal stands approved.

the speaker pro tempore: the house will come to order.

the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? thompson thompson mr. speaker, request -- mr. thompson: mr. speaker, request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for one minute. mr. thompson: mr. speaker, thank you. mr. speaker, i rise to address the largest threat that confronts every man, woman and child, $16 trillion in national debt. this massive debt that is carried by the nation grows larger each and every day. americans should be united that the overspending and reckless financial unpaid loans has created a legacy of debt for all current and future generations of americans. americans are united that it is right to help those most needy and vulnerable.

sadly, the debt prevents this nation from fully helping those needs. annual interest alone is crowding out our ability to help those needs. this consumes 60% of our yearly expenses. this crowds out important services and creates economic harm that costs americans jobs. it is time to work together to end the debt and provide a secure future for all americans. i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 325 that requires the senate to pass a budget and allows no pay for congress without a budget, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. and i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. just in these last weeks, i have begun to meet with small

business owners. i have spoken with constituents at their door steps and i've had conversations and events throughout my community. the one thing that central new yorkers has made clear, we need to grow our middle class, create good-paying jobs. central new yorkers want a fair shot at the american dream. now, we need to balance the budget but we need to do it in the right way, not on the backs of our middle class and seniors so medicare and social security must be protected. mr. maffei: we can do this without sfoysing vital investments and future generations. our local businesses want to hire and expand new workers. that's what i heard going around central new york, we need to keep central new york printed in part of the broad shoulders of the middle class on which this country's future rests. to this house i say i am committed to do everything i can to make sure that every central new yorker has a fair shot at the american dream. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition?

>> i ask permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, the gentleman from pennsylvania spoke just a few minutes ago, put his finger right on the problem, we have a $16.4 trillion debt. $50,000 for every man, woman and child in this country. $50,000 for every baby born today. before that baby draws his or her first breath, is greeted with a $50,000 bill, their part of the u.s. debt. mr. speaker, that's reckless. mr. harris: but there's something even more reckless. the only way to solve these problems is with a budget. every house knows it. every business knows it. almost every government knows it but not the u.s. senate, which hasn't passed a budget for four years. tomorrow the house will take up house resolution 325, and this bill will force the u.s. senate

to finally pass ar budget in order to increase our debt ceiling. the time is now. the senate has to act. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and address the r one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. for one minute. >> mr. speaker, on january 28, 1986, the space shuttle challenger broke apart 73 seconds after launch. the whole world cried watching challenger tumble back to earth knowing that seven brave americans had lost their lives. mr. olson: commander dick scobee, michael smith, mission

specialist judy rzeznik, mission specialist rob income mayor in, mission specialist -- mcnair, mission specialist, helm specialist greg jarvis and america's first and only teacher into space, chris at that, all perished pursuing our dreams. the night of the disaster president reagan put our thoughts, our pain and our prayers into words. he said, we will never forget them, nor the last time we saw them, this morning, as they prepared for their journey and waved goodbye and flipped the surly bonds of earth to touch the face of god. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the request of leave of absence for mr. aderholt for today.

without objection, the request -- the clerk: leaves of absence requested for mr. aderholt of alabama for today and mrs. gabbert of hawaii for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the requests are granted. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the gentleman from minnesota, mr. ellison, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. ellison: thank you, mr. speaker, for your allotting the time. appreciate it very much. my name is keith ellison. i'm here today to reflect on what i believe was a historic speech for the ages yesterday. president obama met the historic challenge, met the historic moment and just want to talk about my feelings about how important that speech really, really was. president obama, you should understand, is called upon to

make his second inaugural address and inaugural addresses historically are, you know, speeches that people don't always remember but there are some that we will never forget because of how important that they are. his first speech four years ago was a speech in which, over the course of 18 minutes, he talked about trying to reach out diplomatically, he talked about the importance of trying to come together to solve common problems. and i think the basic attitude of the first speech was conciliation in an effort to try to work out problems both for and -- both foreign and domestic. this speech, however, president obama set forth what i believe was a clear, concise agenda based on values that he holds. i was so proud to hear president obama talk about the need to address climate change. he reminded us that you can believe in climate change or you can disbelief in climb change

but the -- climate change but the fact is our storms are harder, our -- the drier weather we're seeing is causing forest fires and we are seeing can as itify -- catastrophes associated with climate change, we're seeing the consequences of it. so if we ignore the cause, we cannot ignore the consequence. i was so proud to hear him say. that he also spoke up boldly for equality, human rights, civil rights for all americans. i remember he said, and you may recall, too, mr. speaker, he said, he said, we will never forget, you know, stonewall, cynical falls and selma. these are three iconic moments in civil rights history when he talked about the women's right movement, gay rights movement and african-american movements for civilritis. but they ale added up to one thing which is that an american is an american is an american, doesn't matter what your color is, what your sex is, who you love and want to be with, what matters are that you are an american and entitled to the

full protection of the law in these united states. i think it was very important for him to do so. it represented an evolutionary moment in american mystery that a president, being nag rated into his second term, -- being inaugurated into his second term, would stand up and say civil and human rights for all people. i thought it was a great moment and found myself cheering even though i hadn't planned on doing so. but he didn't stop there. he specifically said we need to stand here and protect social security, medicare and medicaid. three critical programs this nation depend on, three critical programs that senior depend upon but not only seniors depend upon, also we know that seniors and people who are living on survivor benefits, when their loved one who gets social security dies, are entitled to get survivor benefits and these

survivor benefits are literally putting food on the families of millions all across this country. but not only. that people with disabilities get medicare and social security. and he stood up for these programs. reminding us that the richest country in the history of the world, the richest country in the history of the world does not need to throw its poor, its vulnerable and its aged under the bus. it doesn't -- we're not too broke to make sure that our senior citizens, our children who are on survivor benefits, and people who are vulnerable economically, we're not too par to make sure that there's something for them and they have a livelyhood and a way to make it forward. imagine the richest country in the history of the world saying, i'm sorry, grand ma, but we got to cut your benefits because we can't make. it the reality is, when he gave that speech and he specifically identified those three programs as central to the american dream, the american promise, i was proud and i said, that's

right. and i tell you, i was so happy to hear him say that. but he didn't even stop there. i mean, he talked about the need for immigration reform. and the fact that for so many people around the world, america is still the land of opportunity and that we cannot sit by, 12 million people living in our country in the shadows, no pathway toward citizenship, the president specifically called on us to do something about it. now, president knows that guns are a volatile issue. he didn't smack the issue of gun violence prevention right on the head. but he did mention the victims of sandy hook and did tell us that children have a right to be safe at school, thereby signaling that, you know, yeah, we are going to do some things about the proliferation of guns, high-capacity clips, background checks, things that make sense. not taking away the right to own a gun, but to do commonsense gun violence prevention measures that i think will make everybody

safer. in fact, if you look at the news right now, you know that there was another shooting today in texas. today. today. and so, the bottom line is that the president laid out a vision, an inclusive vision for america. the president got up and front of the world stage -- got up in front of the world stage, all the members of congress, ambassadors, senators, the supreme court and everybody assembled and said, this is the direction that we're going in. we're going to say americans, whatever their background, are included within the promise of america. we're going to address income inequality, we're going to protect the social safety net. now, some pundit, you know, you can always count on the punditry to throw salt around. they said. ing with well, it didn't reach out to the -- they said, well, it didn't reach out to the republicans. i think that republicans are on social security, medicare, medicaid and they probably or at least their parents appreciate

protection of that program. republicans live on this planet in which we see the temperature rising and the consequences of global climate change hurting more and more people. some republicans are black, some republicans are latino, some republicans are gay. and when they heard that they are included in obama's vision of america they must have felt good about that. so i don't agree that this speech didn't reach out to the full range of the political spectrum left and right. i think if you're in the categories that he mentioned, that no matter what your political ideology may be, that you would feel that, yeah, this includes me. now, i think the president's speech was also great because it was courageous. no president has ever mentioned before the gay community in the united states. and most people, like myself, and most people are what we call straight or heterosexual but we know, all of us know that there is prejudice against the gay community.

there's no denying this. there's no sense in denying it. and we all know that these folks are our neighbors, they're our co-workers, they're our friends and we know that they have suffered because of prejudice against them. and for a president to stand up and say this isn't right and that everybody's included in the american dream, i thought was a great moment. it was a first. it was historic. and i think that president obama seized the historical mantle and said, you know what? i'm not going to sit up here and use a bunch of flurry, vague language. i'm going to get up and talk about what i really believe in. i was so proud of obama yesterday. i admired how he handled himself and what he said. i think over the past four years president obama has in my opinion, bent over backwards to reach out to the republican caucus. i mean, he's really accommodated them in a whole number of ways. and yet their caucus and the record is clear, has come forward and said that their goal

over the course of the last four years was to make him a one-term president. well, they failed. he's a two-term president. so the question is, are we now going to come together? is the caucus of no now going to say, ok, there's some things we're willing to work with? i hope so. you know, let me tell you, my dad was a republican for many years and of course i love my dad, loved him when he was a republican. and he was what i call a sensible republican. he believed in watching the money, he believed in getting the most out of every dollar. he believed that government had a limited role and shouldn't get in everybody's business. but today we have folks who are not, you know, in the realm of like even negotiation. they're willing to shut the government down, allow our -- us to go over the fiscal cliff and default on america's debt just to get their way. now, that's not -- that's an extremist position. this is an extremist -- extremist ideology.

it's not a reasonable thing to say. now some of them will come up here and say, well, you know, talking about how big the debt and the deficit is. but wait a minute. when we say that we want to say cut oil subsidies to big oil companies they don't want to do that. when we want to raise some taxes on the wealthy so we can use that money to lower the deficit, they don't want to do that. i doubt anyone who says that they're so outraged by the debt and the deficit and we give credible solutions on how to lower it and they say, no, i begin to doubt that that's really what you're concerned about. you know, the speech yesterday that the president gave i believe is a good starting point. the president is not negotiating with himself. he's declaring his position. the other side in the political divide can declare their position. then we can come together and negotiate. in the past, and i'm a huge supporter of the president, but

i kind of believe what he used to do is he used to state his values, then he used to anticipate what the other side would want, then he used to try to come together, bring both toll together, then ed -- bring both together, then he'd go to the table and negotiate. we'd end up with a centrist position. then anywhere we went from there would be further to the right. so if we were lucky we ended up with a center-right position. now i think we start with -- proud to be progressive liberals as we are, we start out where -- what we believe. in they say what they believe in. then we negotiate and maybe we'll end up in the middle. but i don't want end to up in the right -- in the center-right anymore. i want to end up with some reasonable compromise that protects social security, medicare, medicaid, that protects civil rights for all americans. that addresses this massive income inequality, that addresses climate change and moves us toward a green economy, that allows people who are immigrants to have a pathway back into respectability of life

in american society and the president did not disappoint last night. i believe in those things. clearly he does too. and i was so proud to see the president stand and deliver for these important values. you know, over the next several weeks, mr. speaker, we're going to be in a huge debate, as you know. we just finished the whole debate on the so-called fiscal cliff. and it really wasn't a fiscal cliff. it was more of a -- that was the name the press clove loved to call it but -- press loved to call it but it was a set of budgetary deadlines and tax deadlines. and we were able to come up with a deal but the worst part of the deal is what wasn't in it. that's why i voted for it. i wasn't thrilled with the deal but the thing i didn't like about it was the stuff mostly that was not included. because even though i was happy to extend unemployment for a year, that was good, even though i was happy to raise taxes on the richest americans because i

believe it's their patriotic duty to help their country out, that was good, too. i believe it was a good -- those were good things. i thought the fact that we did not deal with the debt ceiling, the sequester and the considering resolution really put us in a position where we would, a few months later, you know, our republican friend would say, you know, you're going to cut vital programs for americans who need them or we're going to shut down the government. you're going to cut head start, you're going to cut food stamps, you're going to cut social security, medicare, medicaid, or we're going to default on america's debt. because this is the hardcore bargaining position they've been trying to ram down our throat. i'll never forget speaker boehner who said, look, if they don't take this -- these cuts in one loaf, we'll feed it to them a slice at a time. that's a quote. and so i was concerned that, you know what? this deal that we just did, this

so-called fiscal cliff deal, the new year's eve deal, that even though there were things in it that i thought was good, i was concerned because of what wasn't in it. i believe the american people and our markets, our business people, deserve to have this budgetary issue resolved in a way so they can actually plan. . my republican friends correctly point out there is a consequence when congress doesn't solve the problems but they're the ones causing uncertainty. they are guilty of causing the problem they criticize the most. they said we shouldn't kick the can down the road. they should we should have finality. but they are the ones not agreeing to some finality. they say that we need to make sure that we get some real job creation, but they're the ones cutting into the public sector causing us layoffs from the federal government and state governments and people who have government jobs spend money, too, which leads people who

they do business with to have jobs because, of course, if you work for the e.p.a. and you go to a local grocery store, you spend money there which allows the cashiers and the stock people to have jobs. so everything they say they don't want, it seems like they're for. they don't want job cuts. they don't want job losses, but they create them. they don't want uncertainty but they create them. they want finality but they avoid it. and it doesn't make any sense. they say they want to reduce the deficit, but they enlarge it. so my point is, you know, what's really going on here? you know, i think president obama has just kind of had enough and said rather than trying to figure out how to do a deal with these folks who keep moving the goal post, i'm just going to say what i'm about. i'm going to declare what my values are and they can come to the table and represent their own point of view and we'll find a way, hopefully, to get

to a point where we can agree and go forward even if we hate the deal, even if we don't like it, at least we can maybe move forward so americans can at least be able to plan for their future. you know, mr. speaker, i think that presidential inauguration speeches are important. they do lay out an important path, and i was reviewing, mr. speaker, the inaugural speeches of president abraham lincoln. i am a huge fan of abraham lincoln. i wouldn't call myself an expert or scholar of lincoln. i am an amateur reard of everything about lynn -- reeder of everything about lincoln. -- reader of everything about lincoln. in his first speech, if you recall, mr. speaker, as soon as he was elected, southern states began to suss seed. south carolina, mississippi, they started susceding.

they said, we're out of here. so when he came to his inaugural speech on the first one, he was trying to keep the southern states in and trying to keep the border states from leaving. so he said some things that were so conciliatory that even the abolitionists at the time thought he wasn't what they were hoping for. he wasn't really against slavery. he said he was but they thought he didn't prove it. they thought he was too cautious and they criticized him for this. but every the civil war broke out and so much blood was spilled and so much harm was done to our nation, 620,000 people died in the civil war, president lincoln came back four years later, and on that speech his second inaugural speech was a bold defense of the union cause and an argument

that slavery must go. and he didn't pull any punches on the second one. now, he was not boldacious. he was not offensive. he was trying to be as conciliatory as he could be, but he made very clear that america was going to be one whole and not divided and, two, it would be slave-free. he didn't water it down as some pundits think that obama should water his position down. the second time around, after we went through all the big fights, president lincoln stood firm and spoke firmly, clearly but also conciliatory as he should have been. folks back in 1865 probably thought, lincoln ought to be more sympathetic to the south, he ought to work with them

more. i am not comparing our bedgetary problems to slavery. i am not saying they are sympathetic to slavery. they're not. that's not true. i am simply trying to make the point that you can -- when you start out trying to work with somebody and you can't get anywhere, you go through all the travails and difficulty of try to get somewhere and you can't. then at the end of the fight, if you win, probably you are going to say, look, i tried to work with you. you wouldn't work with me. i ended upcoming out on top of this thing, so now i am going to bargain for my position. that's not saying the president is not going to negotiate. it's not saying the democrats aren't going to negotiate. we are going to negotiate. we believe the democratic process requires an aye toward compromise, but i believe we went to our constituents in 435 districts around this country

and we told them what we believed in and we told them what we stood for. and so they deserve us to at least articulate that position. and if we have to make a compromise on some things for the sake of the union, for the sake of the nation, we should do that, but we should never act like we don't believe in what we do in fact believe in which is social security, medicare, medicaid, which is confronting income inequality, which is equality for all americans regardless of race, color, sexual preference and all that kind of stuff. we should say what we believe in. we should say that a woman should earn every penny that a man makes. we should say these things. we should not be afraid to be who we are and articulate our vision of a world. and then when we go to the negotiating table, there might be some things we have to give up and there might be some things we get, but we should not make any mistake what we're all about. i feel the president did a fine job for america yesterday.

i think the president -- i wish him well, and i do know that the president, being a man of reason, will listen to republican arguments as to what they would like to see happen, but i also believe, based on what he said yesterday, that he is going to fight for what he believes in too. he also warned us against -- he said, don't confuse it to absolutism. he said, listen, i am going to have to negotiate some things, but we know when he goes to that table we know where he's starting from and that makes me feel good. i wish very -- all the best for this presidency and this congress, because i think that if the republicans are successful and the democrats are successful and the president's successful, then america will be successful. so i'm here to say that i hope we do negotiate. but there's some things that

quite frankly i'm not willing to -- i'm not willing to cave in on. social security, medicaid, medicare, beneficiary cuts are asking for cuts to people who have already been cut. do you know, mr. speaker, that a widowed woman on social security, that 20% of them have nothing but social security to live on and yet we want to reduce their benefit? do you know that a full -- that a full third of widowed women on social security depend upon social security to the degree of 90% of their income? and we're talking about people making somewhere between $17,000 and $24,000 a year to begin with. you cannot go to people who already have so little and say give me back even more. and this is at a time when, because of our housing foreclosure crisis, rent in

nearly every city has gone up, and this is at a time when we have limited vitally important programs that help ease the pain of poverty for americans. and so we're going to -- there are some things we are going to protect in this, and we are going to call upon the masses of americans to protect. let me just say, mr. speaker, that today i don't have the ability to be here for the whole hour. duty calls. but i did want to offer a few reflections on the speech that was given, but i also want to say a few other things as it relates to the next period coming up. in the next few weeks we are going to face a debt ceiling increase. in fact, we have a debt ceiling vote tomorrow. we're not voting to raise the debt ceiling, mr. speaker. we're voting to suspend it. i think this is bad policy because i think that markets,

business people and everybody else needs to know that the congress is going to stand by the credit rating and the debts of the american people. we're not going to default. we shouldn't threaten that we are, mr. speaker. it's bad. it's not a good thing to do. mr. speaker, it's important for the american people to know that when we talk about raising the debt ceiling, congress is not approving new spending. we're not borrowing -- we're saying that we're going to pay the bills on debts we already acquired. mr. speaker, it's kind of like this. if you have a family and somehow you have a mortgage to pay, you've already obligated to pay a mortgage, now, if you don't have the money for your mortgage, you may have to go to your cousin, your brother, your uncle and say, i need you to help me until next week so you can pay the mortgage. now you borrow money to an obligation you already owe. and if you don't pay you will

default on. now, you can also have a situation where somebody who doesn't have enough money but goes into, you know, a local electronic store and says, i'm going to buy a big screen television there on my credit card. now, those are two different scenarios. vor borrowing to meet obligations you have already acquired and borrowing money on something you can't afford. it's borrowing obligations we already have. it's not borrowing for new expenditure. when we have appropriated money and when we've appropriated expenditures in the past, we might raise the debt ceiling to meet those obligations which we should do because to do otherwise is to say that america is going to default on its debt which we cannot do. not just for our own sake, but this would cause international harm to the world economy. and, mr. speaker, people are

confused about this whole debt ceiling debate and i don't believe it is right for republicans to just suspend the debt ceiling and then to put a bunch of stuff in there about the senate and, you know, all that kind of stuff, provisiones that are blatantly unconstitutional, too, by the way. so i'm disappointed in this thing that's coming up, but people need to know this debt ceiling vote is coming up. they should also know that the sequester is coming up. we delayed a few days ago with the new year's eve deal, we delayed the sequester two months. these are massive cuts to the tune of i think around $89 billion that are going to be put on the pentagon and domestic spending. they're dumb cuts. we are not looking at specific programs in evaluating their worth and eliminating some and keeping others. we just like, chop. this is no way to budget for a

nation, and i hope we can delay the sequester. but it's coming up soon. republicans have vowed they want even more cuts maybe in addition to the sequester to negotiate, and i think we should remind everybody we've already had $1.7 trillion in cuts and we just did $600 billion in new revenue. that's about $2.3 trillion, mr. speaker, and, you know, how much more -- how much more cutting do we need to do, particularly when we talk about vital programs for americans? so, mr. speaker, i think if we're going to do cuts we should cut things that we really don't need. for example, medicare part d, passed in 2003, prohibits medicare from negotiating drug prices with the pharmaceutical companies. now, the veterans administration does negotiate for drug prices all the time, but medicare is prohibited from doing so. basically if the pharmaceutical

company says this drug costs this, the government has to pay it and we can't use our large buying power to lower a price. we should change that. we should introduce competitive bidding. this would save us quite a bit of money, mr. speaker. here's another thing we should do. we should eliminate oil subsidies, coal subsidies. fossil fuel industry, highly profitable industry, making a lot of money, profitable industry. there's no reason in a free market economy we should be subsidizing a profitable company. it doesn't make sense. even if you are a free market person, you got a hard case to make that we should be handing exxonmobil and chevron money. we shouldn't do it. we should end it. and any real conservative would agree with me on that. . if you really are about reducing the deficit, that's a way to do it. you know, there's a number of things we could cut. there's a lot of cold war

weapons systems that could be eliminated. you know, we -- our nuclear arsenal could be reduced without threatening our national security and we could save money in doing it. there are ways to reduce the budget. there are ways to do it and we probably should. but let's do it in a way where we keep social security, medicare, medicaid, food stamps, aid for college students, money for investing in medical research, groundbreaking research to give life to brand new industries. you know, a lot of people don't know, mr. speaker, that this thing we call the internet was started with a government program. something called darpa. government grant helped fund the internet. yes, it did. i don't know about al gore but i do know that the government, a government grant put the money into what we now know as the internet. the government did that. the government funded the project for mapping the human genome.

the government. government's not always bad. , so we should teach some programs, we -- so, we should teach some programs, we should lower some others. but we've got to think about this thing in a different wathan we are. all i want to say, mr. speaker, as i begin to wrap up, is that it's an honor and privilege to be able to serve in this, the greatest deliberative body in the world. and even though we have big fights with our republican colleagues, it's an honor to serve with them too. we're both here, sent here, by the 435 districts that we represent to argue our positions and try to come to some kind of solution. i believe that we can have solutions if everyone has an eye toward exro miles. but that depend upon everybody starting out, carrying out the vision of the district they represent. my district wants me to stand up for social security, medicare, medicaid, stand up for civil and equal rights for everybody, including gay people. my district wants me to find a

pathway to citizenship for immigrants, for -- who are here. my district wants me to do something about climate change and move our economy toward a green economy. i'm going to start there. and then we can negotiate with our colleagues on where we end up but i'm proud that the president stood up for our values, i think his speech was groundbreaking, historic and gave real energy to people who share this value system. so with that, mr. speaker, i have to curtail my hour and i'll yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the gentleman from new jersey, mr. smith, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. smith: i thank the chair. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my special order. the speaker pro tempore: without

objection. mr. smith: mr. speaker, 40 years ago today marks the u.s. supreme court's infamous reckless and inhumane abandonment of women and babies to abortionists. 40 years of victims, dead babies, wounded women, shattered families. 40 years of government sanctions, violence against women and children. since 1973 more than 55 million children have been killed by abortion, a staggering loss of children's precious lives, a death toll that equates to the entire population of england. the pass afpblg time hasn't changed the fact -- passage of time hasn't changed the fact that abortion is a serious lethal violation of human fundamental rights and that women and children deserve better, much better, and that the demands of justice, generosity and compassion require that the right to life be guaranteed to everyone. regardless of age, sex, race, condition of dependency,

disability or stage of development. rather than obscure or dull our consciouses to the unmitigated violence of abortion, the passage of time has only enabled us to see and better understand the innate cruelty of abortion and its horrific legacy -- victims. while making us more dempled than ever to protect the -- determined than ever to protect the weak and vulnerable and end the mass deception by the abortion industry. earlier today linda, an economic and an african-american with a degree from harvard who had an abortion told a 40 years of victims press conference that, and i quote her, the lies had brought me to that day and its sorrowful aftermath are crystal clear in my mind. falsehoods and deceptions that concealed the truth about abortion. lies planted in my thinking, she goes on, by clesker marketing, media campaigns and endless repetition led to a tragic,

irreversible decision, the death of my first child. she goes on to say, it's past time to lance the national wound of abortion with truth. that the high culture, leaderers, media, celebrity rifts that brought us abortion seem vested beyond extraction. she said she dreamed of a volcano of abortion truth that would erupt one sunday from the grassroots, women and men and their relatives witnessing to their suppressed emotion, unspoken trauma and lived pain. with abortion denial ended, we as a society could then reconnect with reality in life. clearly, mr. speaker, there are seemingly ominous present-day signs that hinder ending abortion denial and a reconnection with reality in life. certainly the re-election of

abortion president barack obama, public funding for abortion in the obamacare health exchanges that come online in 2014, a massive increase of public funding for abortion, the use of coercion to compel religious believers and entrepreneurs to violate their consciouses -- consciences. slict slick advertising and the export of abortion worldwide and it is deeply troubling that despite the fact that planned parenthood claims direct responsibility for killing over six million unborn babies in their clinics, including a record 333,964 abortions in 2011 alone, planned parenthood remains president obama's favorite organization. despite these and many obstacles, however, we will never quit. our faith and trust in god is trusted, but it also deepens and

it overcomes and forges an indom nabble, yet humble spirit. the pro-life movement, and i've been in it for 41 years, is comprised of some of the noblist , caring, smart and self-less people i have ever met. they make up an extraordinary powerful nonviolent faith-filled human rights struggle that is growing in public support, intensity, commitment and hope. the compassionate women and men who staff thousands of pregnant care centers, many who try to save women from their irreversible decision are experiencing -- help women who are experiencing unprotected pregnancies and they provide tangible assistance, an enormous amount of love and emotional support, both before and after the birth of a child. the pro-life movement is not only on the side of compassion, justice and inclusion, we are on the right side of responsible

science and of history. some day future generations will look back on america and wonder how and why such a seemingly enlightened society, so blessed and endowed with education, advanced science, information, wealth and opportunity could have failed to protect the innocent and the inconvenient. they will wonder how and why a nobel peace prize winning president could also simultaneously have been the abortion president. dr. king, niece of the late dr. martin luther king, who had two abortions but is now solidly pro-life said in one of her speeches, and i quote her, my uncle matter-a dream. she said he dreamt that we would live out that which is self-evident, that all men are created equal. he called on america to turn from wrongs. today i call on all of us, dr. king says, regardless of nationality, race or religion to

admit our wrongs and turn from them. i believe that the denial of the right to life is the greatest injustice we face in the world today. there is no compassion in killing, she sails. there is no justice in writing people out of the human race. history, mr. speaker, will not look favorably on today's abortion culture. we must indeed and instead work tirelessly to replace it with a culture of life. i would like to now yield to my good friend and colleague, macha blackburn, for such time as she may consume. -- marsha blackburn, for such time as she may consume. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. speaker, and i thank the gentleman from new jersey for the excellent work that he continues to do year in and year out on this issue. i appreciate his leadership and we do stand today and mark the 40th anniversary of the tragic roe v. wade decision and it

really is said that not all life is created equal. and since the supreme court gave our government's approval if you will of on-demand abortion, there have been over 55 million lives lost. mr. speaker, i'm not certain that we think about the gravity or the enormity of the issue until we look at it in that collective sense. 55 million lives that have been lost. as a woman, i personally believe that america is better than choosing abortion and i agree and i believe that women deserve better. and the gentleman from new jersey referenced the press conference that victims held today and i was so touched by a statement from one of those that participated in this press conference. her name is irene beltran and

ms. beltran tells a story of what she endured when she was living in southern california and ch when she chose the path of abortion and it is a very tender and heartwrenching story. i want to quote from one paragraph in her story and this statement that she gave. and i'm quoting ms. beltran now. i have grief-stricken countless people with the choice i made. i robbed my seven children of a sister, if that they could have played with, fed and helped nurture. i've robbed three sets of grandparents of a granddaughter. i've robbed through fur generations from -- future generations from ever existing. i've suffered from depression, anxiety and eating disorder, just to name a few. i felt damaged, humiliated and hopeless. women deserve better than abortion. i stand before you today because

my daughter forgives me, my family for gives me, the lord forgives me and i forgive myself. i dedicated the rest of my existence to fight this life and death war. this is why i am silent no more. end of quote. that is the statement from ms. beltran as told at the press conference today. and we all know, we all know in our hearts what she says is just so true. that life is a natural right, it's a gift from god whose love extends beyond our comprehension. and he calls on us to protect the smallest and the weakest among us. we're moving forward with pro-life legislation in the states and the gentleman from new jersey referenced the movement that he has worked in for 40 years. we have 24 state legislatures that passed a record 92 measures that restricted abortion in

2011. nine states have recently banned most abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. on the national level, we're working to end taxpayer funding for abortion. i have legislation that addresses that title 10 funding. and we are continuing to work to make certain that we focus on helping the families that have felt the impact of abortion in their life. we are focusing on celebrating life and committing to making certain that we stand and work toward a pro-life america. with that i yield back the balance of my time. mr. smith: i want to thank my good friend and colleague, marsha blackburn, for her exemplary leadership and foreher -- for her statement today. i want to yield to congresswoman ann wagner, the gentlewoman from missouri.

mrs. wagner: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, it is with heavy heart that i stand here today on the 40th anniversary of roe v. wade, a decision that has done so much harm to the moral landscape of our nation. since that dreadful day 40 years ago, there have been more than 55 million abortions in this country. that is roughly 1/5 of the united states population who we will never know. . we'll never derive the economic impocket these angels could have given to the world and pain that women have had days, months and years after the abortion. i want to put in the record the story of joyce lunas. it's an honor to put her testimony forward. since i was sworn into congress nearly three weeks ago, i have

had had opportunity to sign on to pieces of pro-life legislation. i believe it's important that we prevent any taxpayer dollars from going to abortions or organizations that perform abortions. i believe in the sanctity of life, that life is truly a gift from conception to natural death. and i am dedicated to protecting the rights of the unborn. i support the efforts to reduce the number of abortions in this country and we'll work not only to make abortion illegal but to make abortion unthinkable. you see, as a mother of three beautiful children, the sanctity of life is very cherished and very personal to me. in fact, it was exactly 23 years ago that i came to washington, d.c., on the bus from st. louis, missouri, to participate in the march for life. i know it was exactly 23 years ago because i was six weeks

pregnant at the time with my second son, steven. taking a 14-hour bus ride while experiencing morning sickness is generally not advisable, but i knew actively participating in the pro-life movement at a time when i was carrying my unborn child was so very important. as a mother, i want to raise my children in a world that values life at all stages. i do not want to raise them that shows a flagrant disregard for human life, and at that moment 23 years ago, i knew it was not enough to simply say that i was pro-life. i had to indeed walk the walk. on the anniversary of the supreme court decision that legalized abortion in this country, i am heart broken for the pain this decision has caused over the last 40 years. but i am hopeful, hopeful and inspired by the many young

people i have seen today who will be marching side by side with me for life this friday. i encourage my colleagues to join me and show support for human life at all stages. i yield back. mr. smith: thank you very much for that very powerful statement. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from mississippi, mr. nunnelee. mr. nunnelee: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank the gentleman from new jersey for his leadership in speaking out on this very important issue. our declaration of independence, our nation's birth certificate, states that all are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights and among those are the right to life. but now for 40 years over 55 million americans have been denied that basic right to life guaranteed by our declaration

of independence. the supreme court got it wrong with roe just as they got it wrong with dread scott. now, i accept the fact that under our system of law roe is the law of the land today, but i, along with many millions of people around america, pray that one day that decision will be overturned. while in this body we've had much spirited debate over the right to life. there's one area where we have found bipartisan agreement, and that is that taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize a practice that so many of us find bad. we must protect taxpayers from funding abortion. that's why earlier today i introduced legislation that would do just that. under obamacare, the federal government is required to

sponsor at least two multistate insurance plans. the bill that was introduced earlier today would simply prevent those plans from paying for abortions. thus, making sure that taxpayers around the nation are not required to subsidize the taking of life. this isn't new policy. in fact, it's simply an extension of long-standing federal policy and that's why i ask my colleagues to support this bill. recently, president obama said, when it comes to protecting the most vulnerable among us, we must act now. let's do the right thing. this bill is an effort to do the right thing, to protect taxpayers from funding the destruction of the most vulnerable among us, the unborn child. in closing, let's remember the

words of the prophet of old. this day i call on heaven and earth as witnesses against you that i have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. now choose life so that your children may live. on this 40th anniversary of roe, let us rededicate ourselves to choose life. i yield back. mr. smith: thank you so much, mr. nunnelee. mr. pompeo, fourth district of kansas, i yield. mr. pompeo: thank you. today i stand here on the 40th anniversary of one of the worst decisions of our united states supreme court. it was deeply flawed where too many justices spoke up, missed the core principle contained in that constitution, this notion that every human being is endowed with this special dignity that we call life. the cost of that decision has been enormous.

55 million souls not brought into this world. we can feel it in families and in lives that didn't get to become the next great leaders of our nation. these lives are lost to each of us. they're lost to our families. they're lost to our community. they ever' lost to their maker. i want to talk today about hope. ever since this decision in 1973, there's been a march and i was in the army when you march you march to victory. we'll have the special march this week. in kansas, kansas has a very special relationship to this march. in 1991, in the city of wichita, kansas, we held a summer of mercy where people came together in peace to talk about these lives that should have been protected but had not been. and this week, airline permitting, i will be back to watch young people from all across south central kansas, board buses bound for washington, d.c., i'll see them

off from churches and cathedrals and from synagogues, folks coming to washington, d.c. to once again march on this town to demand that we do everything we can in our power here in washington, d.c., to protect every human life. i'm very proud of the rich history of the contribution of the citizens of the fourth district of kansas made to this movement. it is certainly important to me as a matter of faith but as a matter of science we have this one right as well. we must protect every unborn life. i'm dedicated to doing so, and i look forward to being with that next generation, these young people coming to washington, d.c., so this fight can continue. i yield back the balance of my time. mr. smith: i thank my good friend for his comments. i yield to vicky hartzler two minutes. mrs. hartzler: i applaud my colleague from new jersey and thank him for his leadership on this very important issue. today marks the 40th anniversary of the supreme court ruling, roe v. wade, and

dold vs. bolton, two which ok's abortion in this country. i was in junior high. it was only later when i took a child development class and they showed pictures of the different stages of the baby's development that i came to realize this wasn't just talk about a blob of tissue. this procedure ended a beating heart and denied life into this world. i became pro-life then and continue to be pro-life now. this friday hundreds of thousands of americans will come to washington to recognize this anniversary and it's not an anniversary observed with celebration but one marked by somber reflection. we mourn the loss of 55 million aborted boys and girls, innocent children who were never given the right to live, attend school, go to birthday parties, participate on little league teams or become siblings

and peers. we mourn for families who do not know their lost children but wish they did. we mourn the devastating impact abortion has on our culture and our conconsciouses. this will renew our commitment to defending the most fundamental human right, the right to life. we know that more americans now describe themselves as pro-life, 50%, than those that consider themselves pro-choice, 41%, and we know that young earn americans have begun to understand that the protection of their rights cannot be built upon the destruction of an innocent human being's right to life. still, we have work to do. the federal government continues to subsidize family planning clinics that provide abortions. in 2011, the nation's largest provider, planned parenthood, performed a record number of abortions, over 330,000

abortions. most of us in congress represent approximately 750,000 people. you think about it. that's almost half of a congressional district that was wiped out in 2011 at the hands of planned parenthood clinics alone. planned parenthood ended the beating hearts of these innocent victims while diluting vulnerable women that their choice wouldn't have any harmful consequences and they did so with taxpayer funding, over $500 million in 2011. this must stop. abortion does have consequences. it destroys babies, it harms women physically and emotionally and it harms men's too. this past weekend i had the opportunity to hear men speak who shared the heartbreak and the shame that he suffered for over 20 years at the loss of four children that he was responsible for their abortions. it impacted his marriage, his

mental and his physical health, his parenting and how he was able to do his job. abortion has consequences. it deadens our consciousness and it perpetrates the life that killing an unborn is morally acceptable. this week i stand with hundreds of thousands here in washington who know better, who understand the truth that abortion harms us and is killing off future generations. we observe the 40th anniversary of roe v. wade with renewed hope that more americans will see this truth and honor life. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: i thank the gentlelady for -- mr. smith: i thank the gentlelady for her very eloquent statement. i recognize my friend and colleague, mr. huelskamp. mr. huelskamp: thank you. i appreciate the life from such a pro-life leader. first off, my wife and i are proud adoptive parents of four children. our heart felt gratitude goes out to their birth mothers and birth families for choosing

life for our four children. and i believe you will be eternally rewarded for your generous choice. as reassuring as was mentioned here that every year millions of americans descend on washington and our state capital, including kansas, to defend those taken by abortion. it's a shame this event has to happen, but this year the descent on washington is more than about abortion. it's about liberty. those talk about rights and choices rather than rights and wrongs. so if we were to use their terms, where is the outrage at the fact that americans increasingly have no choice, particularly under the president's health care plan, when it comes to paying for abortion, paying for abortion drugs and numerous other things they find morally reprehensible? and where is the outrage that religious liberty, the first part of the first amendment, can come at the expense of this

radical agenda? we in this congress stand as the people's direct representatives in washington and must stand as a check to the most pro-abortion president in our history. a president's second term is usually about legacy building. for the sake of the unborn and for the sake of our religious liberty, i fear for the legacy he will attempt to craft in the next four years. and i yield back the balance of my time. mr. smith: i thank my friend for his excellent statement. i like to yield, it's a high honor and privilege to yield to the distinguished majority leader, eric cantor, the gentleman from virginia. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. i come to the floor today to join my colleagues in support of the march for life. it seems too often in washington these days the focus is on what people are against rather than what they are for. but this friday thousands of americans will gather because of their support of what our founders described as one of

the inalienable rights endowed by our creator -- life. some of those gathered will be republicans, others democrats, others will belong to no political party at all. they will belong to every faith and race and will belong to every socio and economic demographic. those that gathered this friday and those of us here on the floor of the house this afternoon are joined because we believe that life must be protected and must be protected especially for those who have no ability to protect it themselves. . since roe v. wade in 1973, medical science has made tremendous gains. today expecting parents can watch 3-d images of their young child playing in the womb. today doctors can perform life-saving surgeries on children while they are still in utero and today thanks to medical science we know that

within six weeks afrikaan acception these little lives have a heart -- weeks after conception, these little lives have a heart beat and brain waves. we are moving to safe life. but the real heroes are those men and women who volunteer at pregnancy centers helping women and those gathered for the march for life who are committed to this mission. they gather this year not only in the name of protecting life but also to celebrate the life of the founder of the march, nhly gray. -- nelly gray. we'll all miss her red coach on the stage. but i know nellie would be as pleased as i to see the progress being made for this most important cause. and she'd encourage us never to rest until the job is done. i yield back. mr. smith: i want to thank the distinguished majority leader for his exemplary leadership, for many years, but especially as majority leader, and for reminding all of us that the

unborn child, especially over the last two decades, has become the littlest patient, where microsurgeries and interventions can save children, enhance their life and appreciate his extraordinary leadership. i'd like to now yield to our distinguished colleague, tim walberg, the gentleman from michigan. mr. walberg: i thank my colleague, the gentleman from new jersey, and i thank you nor your leadership as a medical -- for your leadership as a medical doctor. and it is a real special thing in this chamber that we have pro-life patriots who represent medicine, the profession of law, mothers, fathers, people who understand life from the most intimate fashion. i happen to be a pastor and it was 40 years ago that i had just accepted a call to my first church out of divinity school. i was busy in that ministry and getting started and didn't take too much notice of roe v. wade. but it was in 1978 where that

issue hit me full square in the face. when two wonderful young people in my church came to my office and said, pastor, we have a problem. and went on to talk about an unplanned pregnancy that they had. as we discussed, they committed to the fact that they intended to keep the child as a gift of god. but ultimately the story didn't go that way because their parents who were fine, upstanding church members, yets the -- yet determined that these children wouldn't have that as a detriment to their life, encouraged them to, as they called it, terminate the pregnancy. it broke my heart and i watched the pain on these two young people go on even to this very day, 40 years later. and i committed to my god that i would stand for life strongly and had the privilege of doing

that in the counseling sessions, on boards of adoption agencies and crisis pregnancy centers as well. it was just a few years ago, six years to be exact, when i held in my hands littlejohn timothy walberg, my first grandson, along with his twin brother, mica todd walberg. two little boys born at 24 weeks. one pound, 12 ounces, 12 inches long. fighting for life. they had been born just down the corridor from where abortions were being done on those same age children. and i saw these two boys fight for life. some day i will see john timothy again in heaven. but i thank god that little mica todd is alive, a 6-year-old growing strong, healthy, a gift of god. the framers of our declaration

of independence went to their knees many times. they understood the value of politics. but they also understood the value of truth. truth that came not from man but truth that came from god. truths such as these, where it's said in psalm 1:23, children are a gift of the lord, the fruit of the womb. before i formed you in the womb, i knew you. before you were born i set you apart. psalm 1:39 where it says, you form my inward parts, you wove me in my mother's womb. i will give thanks to you for i am fearfully and wonderfully made. wonderful are your work and my soul knows it very well. my frame was not hidden from you. when i was made in secret and skillfully wrought in the departments of the earth, your eyes have seen my unformed substance and in your book we're

all written, the days that were ordaineder to any -- for me, when as yet there was not one of them. i end by going back to what ultimately came from understanding of truth by our framers and founders. when they said, we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, among them the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. i yield back. mr. smith: i now yield to the gentleman from new mexico, mr. pearce. pearspears i thank the gentleman from new jersey for -- mr. pearce: i thank the gentleman from new jersey for leading this discussion one more time. life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. those are values described by our founding fathers and against that backdrop we must understand that a nation is judged the same way that people are judged.

we're judged by how we speak for those least able to speak for themselves. the most fragile in any circumstance are those with no voice at all, the unborn. and on this day, 40 years after a supreme court decision, 50 million voices with no representation, no opportunity to speak. how will this nation be judged? i think the answer is clear. our supreme court at that time expressed conflict on when life began. but today science leaves no conflict. nadarkhani is established on day one. the heart beat is visible soon thereafter. what nation would put mothers at odds with their unborn children

and declare it to be a matter of choice? this is no matter of choice. it's a constitutional question of protection of life. it's a value that our founding fathers would blanch at our definition today. they would have no concept that we would have these discussions. but the hope lies ahead of us because the younger generations are seeing the technological replays of the unborn and know that it's more than a mass of tissue. they're standing in greater numbers on behalf of life as is every one of us who are speaking here today. may god bless this nation as we seek to protect the unborn. mr. smith: thank you very much, mr. pearce. for that very moving statement. i now yield to dr. andy harris, the gentleman from maryland.

mr. harris: thank you very much. and i want to thank the gentleman from new jersey for taking a pause every year to let us review what happened 40 years ago and what's happened since. because 40 years ago, obviously the supreme court decided it was no longer the state's prerogative to decide what laws could regulate abortion and we know some of the consequences of that. we know we have third trimester abortions, we have abortions for sex selection. we have abortions without the consent or even the notification of parents when nye nors are involved. that's the -- minors are involved. that's the path we've gone down. but the majority leader says much has changed in 40 years and deserves re-evaluation. 25 years i spent in the labor and delivery suit. always wondering about how the hypocrisy of when the labor and delivery suite, doing everything we could to save a 24-week baby

while across the corridor 24-week babies were dismembered under what roe v. wade allowed. under the law of the land. and the majority leader is right. science has changed tremendously. 40 years ago we didn't have a human genome project. we didn't realize the richness and diversity of the human genome. we did realize, which that only strengthened, that each and every human being is absolutely unique from the moment of conception. and that's in every textbook you can look into. each and every human being is unique from the moment of conception. and now as the majority leader said we have 3-d and 4-d ultrasound.

we can see these human beings that are not blobs of tissue, they are human beings. so maybe we need to revisit what roe v. wade said. let me tell you a story that really makes you think about revisiting this. because you know, we spend hundreds of millions of dollars to fund organizations whose really sole purpose is to end life through abortion. and very little to help the pregnancy centers that the majority leader spoke of. but in pregnancy centers, a pregnancy center in baltimore, about seven years ago, a woman speaking spanish called one afternoon. she was a political -- on political asylum in the united states fromal salvador. she was single, had two children already, was pregnant with a third. she called the pregnancy center actually to get a refefrl for an abortion -- refefrl -- referal

for an abortion. that day, by coincidence, maybe the grace of god, a counselor was there who spoke spanish. that spoke to that woman. and told her that that woman really wanted to keep her child. but as many women facing abortion she was in a period of crisis. she needed help. i'll offer not the help that a planned parenthood would offer, but the help that this pregnancy center offered. by helping her through her pregnancy, giving her the support she needed, the money she needed, the things she needed to have that child. i know that story because that spanish-speaking counselor was my wife. and 7-year-old jennifer comes over to our house now and i look into her eyes and i wonder if anyone is ever going to tell her the real story of what almost happened. and how is someone going to look in her eyes and tell jennifer

that she was better off because of roe v. wade? i yield back the balance of my time. mr. smith: thank you, dr. harris. i now yield to the distinguished obstetrician, dr. roe from tennessee. mr. roe: i thank the gentleman for yielding and, first, mr. speaker, i want to thank chris smith for not just this year but for over 30 years of advocating for life and making that one of his missions in life and, chris, thank you for what you have done, not only for this congress, but for our country, to make awareness and i really appreciate -- i can't thank you enough what have you have personally done and sacrificed. about -- exactly 40 years ago next month i was a young doctor in training in memphis, tennessee, and i was drafted in the u.s. military and left the country to go to southeast asia for a tour of duty there. and something happened when i

was gone, roe v. wade passed. and it really passed and i wasn't even aware of it because i was out of the country. and came back to my training, which had been interrupted by my military service, and realized something very fundamental -- fundamentally different had happened to america. as an obstetrician, i personally have delivered around 5,000 babies. in the 31 years i was in medical practice in johnson city, tennessee, a small town in northeast tennessee, our group had delivered over 25,000 babies. 25,000 children. i see these children now as doctors and lawyers and teachers and sunday school teachers and soccer coaches and housewives, farmers, you name it. bettering our community. i cannot imagine my community without these young people there. they are the future of this great nation. and i've seen this, as dr. harris mentioned, i saw when

ultrasound went from when it was just a blob you saw to being able to visionize a heart beat 28 days or less postconception. it's unbelievable to be able to see that and to see this child develop is something that i can't explain to you how fulfilling that is, to be able to see that happen and to have a choice. that is a law we have to get right in this country. and thank goodness minds are changing. . i look around this great room, this great chamber and wonder if choices would be different and members of congress might not be here if a different choice had been made. we have a duty to those who do not have a voice. the fourth president of our country james madison, warned

that the rights of the minority must be protected and the unborn children of this country represent the greatest silent minority that there is. they are the most innocent among us and deserve the protection that we afford people in this great country. life is a precious miracle from god. as a physician, i can attest after visualizing literally thousandses of ultrasounds, we have to make our laws consistent with science of today, as has been mentioned before. one of our government's most important duties is to protect the most vulnerable among us and i pledge to remember and strive towards this as long as i breathe i'm hartened that others have chosen to do this and may god bless women who have chosen life, not a choice to terminate

life. mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. mr. smith: thank you for your great leadership here. i would like to now yield to dr. fleming, a medical doctor as well, from the great state of ladies. mr. fleming: i thank the gentleman from new jersey for all the great work you have done in protecting children. and we're all grateful to you for doing that. mr. speaker, 40 years ago when the supreme court's roe v. wade decision was handed down, i was a college student taking courses with a desire to pursue my goal of being a doctor one day. you know, that was when roe v. wade was passed and hardly anybody even noticed what a landmark decision that was that has led now to the death of over 55 million unborn innocents in this country.

today, after 36 years as a family physician and having delivered hundreds of babies, i know now more than ever that life begins at conception of the decades, medical technology has only served to confirm what we know. ultrasound has given us a powerful window into the womb that shows us a small developing human being. we know now through d.n.a. that every little baby and embring yeoh is a unique -- embryo is a unique blueprint. this must be our first priority. that's what i strived to do as a family physician in louisiana looking after expectant mothers and soon to be born babies. as a congressman, it has unchanged. abortion is an attack of the very creed that i follow as a physician.

first do know harm. as a member of congress, i have stood fast against abortion, against laws that have been fringed on the conscience protections of medical providers. we want nothing to do with abortion and i have consistently opposed the use of taxpayer dollars for abortion services. many think that at the termination of a pregnancy that the problem goes away, but nothing could be further from the truth. we know through studies that young women who have abortions are more likely to have depression, more likely to commit suicide and future miscarriages and problems with their pregnancy. the problems do not end with the termination of an innocent life. the abortion epidemic has cost 55 million children their lives. this is a national tragedy, and it must stop. it's on a heartbreaking anniversary today, 40 years, roe v. wade and i'm more committed than ever to defending the lives

of the unborn. and i yield back. mr. smith: i yield to my good friend, mr. schweikert. the gentleman from arizona. mr. schweikert: mr. speaker and to my good friend, mr. smith. thank you. thank you for managing this. you know, the last handful of congressmen have come up to the mike have been medical doctors. i get to stand here behind the microphone and share a slightly different story and this is that one very special time of year i get to stand here and say thank you to a woman named mary lynn sheridan. she was a 16, 17-year-old who found out she was pregnant. and she was in the car on the way at that time, southern california, on her way to mexico, and she broke down crying and kept crying more and

the two girlfriends she was with were terrified she was getting sick in the car, they turned around and took her back home and heaven forbid, she told her mother she was pregnant. and i was born a few months later at holy family, unwed mothers' home in downtown l.a. and the amazing thing is, picture this, you're in your 30's, you come into work one day and you turn on your computer and there is an email saying, hi, david, you don't know who i am. here's your birth mother. what do you do? how about if she's never told her family, told her two daughters that i'm out there and i sent a really carefully worded note after having a family meeting and had one of the most amazing experiences you can

imagine. imagine a couple weeks later, you get a phone call and it's this little voice saying i've prayed for you every single day of your life, every march 3, i go to mass. i light candles for you. are you ok? are you happy? have you had a good life? and all i could tell her through all the tears was look, i'm incredibly lucky. i was adopted by an amazing family and i'm here in congress, which actually in many ways may have disappointed her, but the reason i stand here and tell the story is, i have had this amazing relationship having now met my birth father and having spent holidays with my family that has raised me and my birth family. i have a picture in my office with all these kids and all these people, even my little list ser who meat her birth

family and we get everyone together and go to disneyland. and i have noticed there is an amazing change out there where the kids come up to you and say, ok, my mom is your sister, but your sister is not my mom's sister. and little kids get it. and i think with this, i get to come here behind the microphone and say thank you. thank you for giving me the chance to be alive. thank you for giving me a chance to engage in this battle that we have here in congress of trying to do good things for our country. thank you, marry lynn sheridan. if we're not too far over time, my mother would send my birth mother pictures of me as a baby.

so when i would go to walnut, california and see my birth mother, down the hallway would be pictures of me as a little kid. my birth mother has developed a very aggressive type of alzheimer's. and something amazing is happening in her mind. she can describe all those photos in her mind now. i grew up with my two younger sisters there in walnut, california, in her mind, i have been with her this whole time and that heartbreak she used to describe to me for all those years wondering what happened to me is gone. thank you, god. thank you for -- and to mary lynn for giving me a chance to be here today. thank you. and i yield back. mr. smith: thank you for sharing not only with the congress but with the country that very moving story. i would like to now yield to --

the gentleman from iowa, mr. king. mr. king: i thank the gentleman from new jersey for yielding and for leading this special order on this 40th anniversary of roe versus wade. 40 has a lot of implications. moses led them wandering in the desert for 40 years. and jesus was 40 days and 40 nights. i have been married for 40 years number of things i would like to tell in this narrative, mr. speaker, but the first one i would like to relate is a story of joyce, who has delivered to me her narrative and pick out some of the highlights of it and introduce it into the congressional record, mr. speaker. joyce i yield to the gentlelady

from north carolina. ms. foxx: i thank my colleague from mr. king. i'm sorry i could not get down here earlier but the rules committee kept me. but i want to say all of us here are speaking on extraordinarily important topic to our nation. life is the most fundamental of all rights. it is god-given, but millions of babies have been robbed of that right in this the freest country in the world. that is a tragedy beyond words and betrayal of what we as a nation stand for. before liberty, equality, free speech, freedom of conscience, the pursuit of happiness and justice for all, there has to be life. for millions of aborted infants, many pain incapable and many discriminated against, life is what they have been denied often

at taxpayer expense. and an afront to life for some is an afront to life for every one of us. one day we will be different. we hope this vib valued. the era of abortions will be closed and collectively deemed one of the darkest chapters in american history. until that day, it is the solemn duty to stand up for life, regardless of the length of this journey, we will speak to those who cannot and continue to pray for the one who can change the hearts of those in desperation and those in power who equally hold the lives of the innocent in their hands. may we in love defend the unborn. may we in humility confront this national sin. and may we mourn what abortion reveals about the conscience of our nation. and i thank my colleague from iowa very much for yielding. and i yield back.

mr. smith: yield to the gentleman from iowa. mr. smith: i thank the gentleman from new jersey. i start again from the beginning , mr. speaker. and that is that this is the 40th anniversary of roe versus wade, i never imagined we would be here 40 years afterwards, 55 million abortions afterwards speaking for respect for the right of life and right of personhood that many on the other side of the aisle claim they should have once they are born. give no right to dignity to babies that are born. i would like to provide some of the narrative here of a story written by joyce nunes. each one of these are just heart wrenching and this is among those stories which there are millions around the country. joyce's story starts out with this in bold, we will not speak

of this again. it's her mother telling her as a 15-year-old girl on the way to the abortion clinic that there would be no discussion of it outside of what happened that day. that's at age 15. and it says that the room was filled with many girls, one of which she knew, weren't able to keep it as a secret and said it wouldn't hurt, but it did. they said it would be over real quick, but it has lasted 35 years. and 11 years later, there's a narrative, mr. speaker. 11 years, three clinics, two states, seven abortions, not once was i told of the traumatic suffering that would follow, which it did. and on the seventh abortion, joyce writes, several hours later the noise broke a decade-old trans, what have i done. and as her story continues she writes about emotional trauma.

the choiled lost through choice would devour my dignity and it justified my twisted truth. it goes on 4,000 times in america. everyone who talks about their right to choose, but no one talks about the choice, the result of the choice. the rights i will never forget hearing my first born's heartbeat. think of joy in most people. i was shocked and terrified the nurses would see right through me in what i had done to my other children. i was never told you need to grieve and cry, that your life would be altered by the horrors of your chosen loss. this narrative, i will introduce into the record and put this in this perspective. 40 years of roe versus wade, how did we get here, mr. speaker? and it's important for us to understand how the creeping decisions of a supreme court creep in on the innocent unborn

lives of 55 million babies who were victims of abortion. millions of mothers and of fathers who suffered the trauma and heartbreak of finding out afterwards that they carried the responsibility and the burden on their conscience that altered them for a lifetime. it changed their relationships with their other children with their family members. it changed their relationships with brothers and sisters and mother and fathers. in 1965, we had a supreme court decision called griswald versus connecticut and that was the camel's nose under the tent. they prohibited the sale of contraceptives and it was supported by the catholic church and litigated by the supreme court and they found a right to privacy manufactured out of thin air. that right to privacy that granted then -- that prohibited banning the sale of contraceptives to married couples.

the word right to privacy phrase became the foundation for from 1965 on until 1973, roe versus wade. and two cases came together essentially said that you have a right to an abortion at any time for any reason. abortion on demand. that was the conclusion of the two cases, dough versus bolden in 1973. we have some opportunities to make changes here in congress and the beginning was a ban on partial birth abortion which was litigated, turned down. i arrived here in the judiciary committee and we rewrote that language under the leadership of steve chabot of ohio, so it would comply. it was litigated across the count viaside and i went into the courtroom in lincoln, nebraska as he concluded that the findings of congress were inferior to the preparation of the attorneys in that court. someone had to speak up. i did so in lincoln that day and

let him know that our congressional findings were deeply deliberated and well-founded and i did so through the press and i found out he reads the papers. . it at least banned the gruesome process of partial birth abortion. and in the process of thee debates we've had, mr. speaker, it has been useful. we've marched here, this will be the 40th year that hundreds of thousands of by now millions of people and especially young people have come to washington, d.c., gone out to the basilica for the pro-life vigil mass where i've seen as many as 15,000 people out at the basilica, all praying together, all singing together, all joining together in an effort to protect and defend innocent, unborn human life and then come the next day here to the mall in washington and march together from the mall all the way around to the supreme court. and then disperse across the capital ground to the various receptions -- capitol ground to

the various receptions and offices so they can bring their influence. this has changed the conscience of america. this has informed millions of now mothers that might have given up their baby to abortion instead. i'm encouraged by the path that we've taken. i have to believe that millions of voices raising together in hims and prayer -- hymns and prayer and marching over the years, it has had its effect. it's having its effect there. will be a day when we see the end of vov. wade. there will be a day when we -- row vs. wade there. will be a day when we respect and revere every human life from that instant or moment of conception until natural death. that's what i work for, that's what i pray for. that's what many members of the pro-life caucus here in congress have and many people across the countryside. mr. speaker, i'm grateful to live in a country that has so many millions of people, that have great respect for innocent, unborn human life. and i will be forever gratefulify live to see the da day that roe vs. wade is finally

set aside and life is protected in law. i thank the gentleman from new jersey and i yield back. mr. smith: thank you. mr. speaker, i yield to my friend and colleague, mr. jeff fortenberry. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the chair recognizes the gentleman from nebraska, mr. fortenberry, for 30 minutes. mr. fortenberry: i ask an thank all members have five days -- i ask that all members have five days to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. fortenberry: mr. speaker, this friday hundreds of thousands of people will gather in washington for a peaceful march, exercising that most american of values, the right to assemble and the right to freedom of speech. among the people who will come

are multitudes of young persons from all over america, young people who are the inherer tos of the great civil rights tradition -- inheriters of the great civil right trassdigs of this land. these young people -- tradition of this land. these young people are pro-life. and, mr. speaker, they're really saying something pretty simple. they are saying that the time for honesty has come. that the time for a new national conversation has come. that the time for the violence to end has come. that the time since the supreme court decision that legalized abortion on demand, some 40 years ago, has inflicted a deep wound on ourselves and the very soul of this country. over the past few decades we have witnessed an evolving dessensityization to abortion. it has become too easy to think of abortion as a procedure, as

something clinical, somehow normal, removed. disguised in the mantle and vocablary of health, minds and hearts can easily become numb to what abortion really is. to what it really does. and to who really dies. but the youth among us, they know better. they know that women deserve better. abortion is so often the result of abandonment. a woman not knowing where to turn falls into the grasp of the abortion industry which says, we can quietly make this go away. there are no consequences here. just pay over there. but the consequences are so very real. abortion is an act of violence. the woman so often carries the wound from this act of violence imposed upon her. her unborn child dies.

the abortion industry profits from this pain and the other responsible party, the man, escapes his responsibility. this is why the early feminist movement saw abortion as another form of male domination over women. mr. speaker, young people, they know this. they sense this. they know instinctively that the supreme court's decision was a dine sauer decision -- dinosaur decision. not based on science. they know that the consequences of abortion are very real. and they're simply saying there's a better way, there has to be a better way. we should be loving enough and caring enough. we certainly are big enough. we certainly have resources enough. to rally as a community and help a person no matter how difficult

their circumstance is. they are saying no woman should be left alone or in isolation. we are a community committed to the beautiful gift of life. mr. speaker, that's the message from these young people. who will gather by the tens of thousands this friday in washington. and i'm proud to stand with them. with that i'd like to yield some time to my good friend, congressman smith. mr. smith: i thank my good friend for yielding and applaud his tremendous leadership over the years in defense of the culture of life, for being consistent on all human rights issues from child soldiers and combating that abuse of children to the abuse of unbourn children by the way of abortion. i thank him for that. i would just make a few points because we are coming to a close. mr. speaker, you know, today doctors diagnose illness and disability before birth, new and exciting breakthrough health

care interventions for the unborn, including microsurgeries are leading to an ever-expanding array of successful treatments and cures of sick and disabled unborn babies. unborn children need to be, a few other members have made this point very clearly, as do i, unborn children are society's littlest patients and they might need health care just like any one of us. in stark contrast, abortion methods rip, tear, dismember or chemically poison the fragile bodies of unborn babies to death and abortion pills cause premature expulsion from the womb and death. there is nothing benign, compassionate or just about an act that utterly destroys the life of a child and often physically, psychologically and emotionally harms women. and despite the near total absence of any meaningful reporting by the news media, women get hurt and even die from legal abortions. according to the most recent

centers for disease control report from 1973 to 2008, at least 403 women tragically died in the united states from legal abortion. and that sad fact is almost certainly a significant undercount because the methodology employed by c.d.c. is passive and voluntary and likely to miss instances of both mortality and morbidity. in the years since c.d.c.'s most recent report, many more women have surely died, like tonya reeves, a 24-year-old woman who died from a boesched secondtry mefter abortion. the abortion industry, mr. speaker, excels at service appeal argument and at propaganda. indeed, the misleading term safe abortion purposely miss it's the point that no abortion, legal or illegal, is ever safe for the

baby and all are fraught with negative health consequences for the mother. today at least 104 credible studies show significant psychological harm, major depression and/or elevated suicide risk to women who abort. the times of london reported that senior psychiatrists say that new evidence has uncovered a clear link between abortion and mental ill innocence women who have had no previous history of psychological problems them. found that, quote, women who have had abortions have twice the level of psychological projects -- problems, three time the level of depression as women who have given birth or never been pregnant. one comprehensive study out of new zealand in 2006 found that 78.6% of the 15-year-olds to 18-year-olds who had had abortions displayed symptoms of major depression as compared to 31% of their peers. mr. speaker, there's at least

115 studies that show significant association between abortion and subsequent premature birth. you never read about this in the news media. researcher sean zall shows a 36 increase risk for preterm birth after one abortion and a staggering 93% increase risk after two. what does this mean for her children? preterm birth is the leading cause of infant mortality in the industrialized world afrikaan genital anomalies. preterm insfant -- world after con genital anom less. low birth weight is similarly associated. these are consequences that are visited upon a woman later on. she's never told this at the abortion clinic that subsequent children that she will have later in her life could suffer prematurity and low birth weight. and finally, the extremist.

-- extremism of the pro-abortion industry is shocking. last spring the house of representatives took up trent franks' bill to ban sex selection abortion. the bill garnered a solid majority, 246-168 in the house. president obama however made it absolutely clear that he would veto the sex selection abortion prohibition should it be sent to the white house. while sex selection targets almost exclusively girls for extermination, simply because they're girls, the egregious practice remains legal in most of our states. in fact, only four states, illinois, pennsylvania, oklahoma and arizona, and several countries including the united kingdom, prohibit sex selection abortions and yet we have not been able to get that legislation enacted into law and it's opposed by president obama. mr. speaker, we need to stand up for life. again i want to thank my good friend and cleeg from nebraska for having this second -- colleague from nebraska for

having this second special order on defending life and like jeff i do look forward to the march for life on january 25, where we'll all rally in defense of the defenseless. i yield back to my friend. mr. fortenberry: if the gentleman would be interested in entering into a dialogue, i'm sorry i missed your earlier statements but let me say to you thank you for your stalwart leadership, your deep commitment to the beautiful gift of life, to saying to america consistently, constantly, ferre vert lently, -- fervently, with heart and emotion for 30-plus years, i think you've been here, approaching 30 years, that there is a better way. we can do better than this. we have to do better than this. women deserve better. but in your last comment us touched upon the issue of sex-selecteded abortion and wonder if in your earlier comments you had talked about where policies such as one-child policies, in china, which are taking hold sadly in other parts of south asia, how they are

affecting population imbalance and how it ends up being the little girls, the unborn little girls, who are primarily the targets of these state-imposed coercion on families. so you have this very significant imbalance in the population because of the targeting of unborn little girls in the womb for sex-selected abortion. perhaps you touched on that earlier. mr. smith: i did not. mr. fortenberry: it's a very important part of this overall discussion. to talk about the consequences of where all of this leads and in a country like china, which is im-- which has imposed this brutality upon its own people, the women who have come here under cover, we've had them in our hearings, they've had to be behind screens because they fear reprisal from the chinese government toward their family, who have talked about being victimized by coercive abortion. that issue, plus the issue of how this is created, this is targeted primarily at unborn girls, the grave injustice of that, i know you're so learned

and have such details on that subject. perhaps we could -- you could reraise that, if you didn't earlier. . submit submit peoples republic of china -- mr. smith:, peoples republic of china, they enacted with great push and encouragement from the united states and from the west, europe especially, a one-child-per-couple policy, where brothers and sisters are illegal and women are forcibly aborted and forced sterilization is achieved and quota. not only does she have to get an authorization from the government of china who have a beap. if she has an out of plan birth she is aborted. as chairman of the china commission and the human rights committee of the foreign affairs

committee, i have chaired 43 congressional hearings on human rights in china. and many of those were focused on women who had to be behind screens to tell their story about the gross indignity, the exploittation, the crimes against humanity that had been committed against them. in china today, there is 100 million, maybe more, missing daughters as a direct consequence of sex selection abortions and which is is referred to as the deliberate killing of the little girl simply because she is a girl. in her book "on natural selection," on choosing boys, the author traces sex selected abortions as a means of population control. she writes, by august, 1969, and no one knows about this, will never read about this in the local papers or hear it on the

major news broadcasts, she writes by august of 1969 when the national institutes of child health and human development and the population council convened another work shop on population control, sex selection had become a pet scheme. if a reliable sex determination technology could be made available for the mass market, it was a rough consensus that sex selection abortion would be an effective, uncontroversial and ethical way of reducing global population. what that means is that you kill the girl child in the womb and you end one life and that girl will never grow up to be a woman because she has been exterminated because she happened to be a girl and will never be a mother. it ace means of population control. it is absolutely an egregious of human rights and our president refuses to support a ban on sex

selection process. where's the inclusion of all unborn babies, but those who are particularly targeted for elimination, the girl child. and i would also add finally, live action, a -- an undercover sting operation they had done and it's on the web, you can watch it and watch the raw footage, liveaction.org. their series, they showed planned parenthood personnel in this country advising undercover female investigators how to procure sex selection abortions. i watched that and was sickened by the admonishment of the so-called counseling all caught on tape. one staffer tells the investigator to whate until her baby is five months along and get the ultrasound and you can determine the gender of the child and if it's a girl, you can kill it.

it was all made clear, each of the investigators were laying out a scenario, if it's a girl, i want the girl child to be destroyed and planned parenthood was accommodating that to the nth degree. mr. fortenberry: it is an important tag ent and element of this discussion because it shows once we give up on this basic fundamental human right, once we let go of our civil rights tradition and don't include every person, including those most vulnerable in the womb, we can see the consequences, and what i talked about earlier as to what abortion really is. so in other places, it has lent itself to coercive population control and even to the shocking horror of taking the life of little girls simply because they are a girl. that still bothers our

conscience here in the country but can see how it is related down the deeper problem, once we start down this pathway, to the important reality, that the life within is deserving of protection. women who are in difficult circumstances deserve better than this, deserve a fullness of commitment from you and me and the united states congress and communities of concern everywhere that there is a better way. we do not have to do this to one another. we do not have impose this wound upon women. we do not have to think in this paradigm when there are hard circumstances. we can do it differently. it's important to have a discussion about the broader consequences of what is happening all around us, because we desensitize ourselves. we didn't have the fullness of

technology which helped us understand how that small tiny life is real, is growing and can reach its fullness if we just nurture it. and sometimes people who are in circumstances that are tough and difficult and need a little help with that nurturing, they deserve that support and help. that's our message. that's our message. if we can turn this back and build upon a new idea that life is beautiful, life is a gift, it is worthy of support not only from just individuals, but from the culture at large, i think we'll go a long way towards stopping this aggressive assault that is happening in other places but is potentially a threat to happen here where you are even selecting out the little girl for termination because she's a girl. this is particularly hard for me to be honest with you, because i have five daughters. this cannot happen that way. i remember in our last

ultrasound for the baby, i still call her a little baby, but when we saw that child in the womb, my youngest one at that time said i hope she's a boy so we have someone to play with. but technology has helped us understand that life, the nature of that life. so that's why the supreme court decision was not scientific. terribly misguided and inflicted a deep wound upon us and given us a falls notion of choice. which sounds good at one level, but the consequences are deep for the individual, for those who are responsible who have been able to escape their responsibility, for geo political movements. and this is unjust, particularly to women and far-away places.

going back to what i said as well, if you like, describe some of the testimony that we heard from the women who came from china in secret who had to be again behind screens because we were fearful and they were as well for reprisals against their families back in china simply because they dared stand up and say, the government should not impose coercive abortion upon me. there was one woman in tears. she had four abortions imposed upon her by the government. you recall that hearing last year, because you were responsible for it and it's a great credit to your leadership. as hard as this is to look at and painful, there hasn't been a more powerful hearing that i have participated in in the united states congress hearing from a victim in a government-imposed coerced abortion and the consequences. perhaps you had raised that earlier. i didn't have the privilege of

hearing you earlier talk, but that perspective is important. mr. smith: i thank you for raising a very important -- at several of these hearings which were covered very scarcely by the news media, unfortunately, we had some powerful witnesses from women who had been victims of coercive abortion over the many years we have had such hearings. and when they tell their story and they talk about the helplessness and hopelessness of the situation, trying to evade family planning officials in china as they hunt them down, most people are unaware with the fact that it begins with economic coercion. if you have a baby out of planned. you are fined if you do not voluntarily for the abortion mill and many women want those children. one of the women who testified, a chinese student attending a u.s. university and part of her

testimony, and this is her words, she said, when she was rounded up literally, grabbed by the family plavening officials and thrown into a van, she said the woman was full of moms who had gone through a forced abortions. some moms are crying, some are mourning, some were screaming and one mom was rolling on the floor with the unbleerble pain and she said it was her turn and through her tears, she described her journey into hell. here was a woman who were literally picked up, arrested. i had a woman back in the 1990's who was pretty much smuggled out of china and ran one of the family planning centers in china , and she self-described herself, by day, i was a monster. by night, a wife and mother of one. and she got asylum here

eventually, but she talked about how she would use every part of the police state to ensure that women, even if they evaded the family planning officials, dragged her in to kill the baby. and a shot or some other substance right to the soft part of the brain to kill the baby. these are crimes against humanity. they ever present throughout china and again, they are missing 100 million girls, maybe more, because of gendercide. there is no precedent or example that comes close of a government using a tool in population control and the like. and it came right out of the population control movement and what happened in the early or late 1960's and especially in the 1970's right in the united states. in 1984, i say to my friend, 29

years ago, i offered the first amendment on this floor from this podium to a foreign aid bill to deny funding to any organization such as the u.n. population fund that is complicit in china's forced abortion policy and unvoluntary sterilization. it passed and was offered on the appropriations bill offered by jack kemp. after all of these years, it is astonishing to me that we still have so many members of congress. we have an administration, the obama administration that is at best indifferent and worst, supportive, of these crimes by giving money to the groups that are on the ground ennabbling these crimes against people. the administration has enabled this by silence and support of $50 million to the u.n. population fund. we passed in this house a